Last modified on 28 February 2015, at 02:48


 ← Index of discussion pages Babel archives (latest) →
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
  • You can comment here in any language.
  • This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
  • If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
  • For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
  • For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
  • To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
  • Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.

VisualEditor News #1—2015Edit

18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice on How to attract users to my wikiEdit

Can someone point me to some sources of advice on hw to attract users to my wiki?


Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2015‎

This is page is for discussing Meta-Wiki. --Glaisher (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Where is the right page?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)
Somewhere on, I believe. Doing a Google search might also help. --Glaisher (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
mediawikiwiki: is mostly about the MediaWiki software, extensions, manual, help pages, etc., not marketing. Better chances for info about marketing might be available on Wikia community central, ignoring tips specific for wikias. The Google Webmaster Tools are a MUST even if you are not a Google friend since they have been taken over by DoubleClick—only officially it was the other way around. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Global user pages and userbox i18nEdit

It seems that Global User Pages have just been enabled, so all of the userpages here on Meta are now heavily visible across Wikimedia sites. Perhaps now might be a good time to start setting up localization for the numerous userboxes (and other userpage templates, if there are any) on this wiki. Any translation administrators around who want to tackle this? --Yair rand (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It would also be good if we could unify their styling - especially the size. The problem is readily apparent on User:Mike Peel, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
A systematic migration/copying of common templates used on user pages (including user boxes) from the various wikis to meta might also be a good thing to consider - that's currently the main thing that's holding me back from merging all of my user pages to my meta user page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I've converted {{User ORCID}}, but don't know how to do {{Commonscat}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I did Template:User admin / Template:User admin/translatable, not sure if it's right the right way to do it though. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
{{User ORCID}} is now better, but still completely out of line in Andy's ad hoc table (babel box over user box). It works for {{User Monobook}} on my page, because I can just add it to the babel box, but {{User ORCID|0123-4567-7654-3210}} has a parameter, the table is necessary. An align="right" doesn't help—it's also deprecated, but nice would beat valid here.Face-smile.svgBe..anyone (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Or is it the Babel template which is out-of-line? The ORCID template now uses {{Userbox}}, which I would expect to be fairly standard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
On wikis other than Meta, Babel box styles are defined by CSS built into the Babel extension, which means there isn't anything we can do to change them. Instead, perhaps we should be changing other userboxes to match. (For example, we could have {{Userbox}} float to the right.) --Yair rand (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrators of Wikimedia projects - obsolete system of pagesEdit

Administrators of Wikimedia projects and its many subpages are horribly out of date, for example the wikisources subpage has been updated since 2008 and even on the wikipedia subpage, few of the wikipedias with less than 50 admins have been updated since 2011. I updated and added (, sometimes known as oldwikisource, though that name is not liked by the locals) and they would have appeared to be the fourth and first largest wikisources, respectively, had I not changed the column headings and used active user data (which means all the other data is now wrong, in addition to being outdated. As it is, the polish wikisource appears to be the second largest wikisource because it was updated in 2014, much more recently than the larger wikisources. Closed projects are included on the list with no indication of their status (because no one has updated the whole page since before they closed).

I didn't even bother to look at the pages for wikiversities, wikinews, wikibooks, etc.

The "By languages" links only list 28 languages and, strangely, english isn't among them. Creating the missing languages would appear to be no easy task.

I see two options:
1) delete the entire system of pages, or
2) find someone to redesign the pages and create a bot to populate them, including creating the missing languages

I can only think of a handful of people with the skill to do the latter and I doubt any have the time, let alone the interest. I'm not convinced that these are at all useful pages in 2015.

Note that meta:Administrators and all of its language subpages, link to these pages as a source of lists of administrators on other (non-meta) projects.

I'm putting this here in case anyone has any better ideas, though I realize a deletion discussion may be the best course of action.

Thoughts? --Doug.(talk contribs) 04:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no benefit to keeping them myself. Seems like trivia, and every project has automatic lists anyway. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless someone is interested in having a bot update this (probably not), the best solution is probably to redirect back to Meta:Administrators and replace the link there with a link to Special:ListAdmins, noting that each wiki supports it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Some subpages are kept relatively up to date and have a real value (I can think of Italian administrators), so I don't see a benefit in deletion. --Nemo 18:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Nemo, can you illuminate in what way they have value? The Italian page (which has a simple list of admins, much less than was attempted on some other pages) was edited once (5 times but all on 1 day) in 2014, that's just the it.wp, hasn't been updated since 2012 and lists a blocked admin-bot and two admins (one also a crat) who were desysopped for inactivity, one in 2012. The Italian entry on the wikisource list hasn't been updated since 2008. How are these more useful than simply going to s:it:Speciale:Utenti/sysop? To whom is it useful? Even if the Italian page is valuable (and it could probably easily be updated by a bot, others would be far more complicated), why should we keep the others? Is there a place that the Italian list could be moved to preserve it, if it's truly useful?--Doug.(talk contribs) 03:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
No, Meta is the place. Having a single place to look at instead of a dozen is so clearly better than I don't know what to add. --Nemo 08:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand your position, I don't understand why it's of value. Still, even if it's of value when it's up-to-date, what solution can you suggest for bringing it up-to-date, the vast majority is 3-7 years old! I'm not about to update it all, even if I had the bot skills, I wouldn't take the time. Just leaving a bunch of stale data because one project, it.wp, has theirs up-to-date, is not intuitive to me. (in fairness, it does look like the German projects are keeping all of their data up-to-date.) Should we delete the ones that are out of date or just leave them stale forever.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
These are statistical pages which could be of interest to people who want to know overall numbers. However it seems more like a task suited to Wikidata, where there is a burgeoning but incomplete list of pages about admins in general. From what I can see, quite a few of those pages have information about how many admins the project has, how to contact them, how to become one etc. Green Giant (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Good call Green Giant, wikidata does make a lot more sense for this information and we could easily simply link to that from the current meta:Administrators and redirect all the current pages there.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Authority controlEdit

Please can someone with the necessary rights import Commons:Template:Authority control together with all of its sub-templates, to this wiki? It will be useful on global user pages. The current redirect will need to be overwritten. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata and enwiki also have authority control templates. Apparently admins, bureaucrats, and importers have import rights here, there is a request page. Are copy+paste+link to source not good enough for your purposes? –Be..anyone (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The Wikidata template is itself an import from Commons. en.Wikipedia's is far more complex, because its primary use is on articles, not user pages. Copy'n'paste would loose attribution. I'll post a request at the syspop page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendly spaces and the Inspire CampaignEdit

Hello Metapedians. As some of you are aware, the WMF Community Resources team is running the Inspire Campaign (background) in March. This campaign aims to encourage, foster, and fund new ideas and approaches to the gender disparity problem on the projects.

Discussions on the projects involving gender have a history of quickly becoming divisive and heated. This is not conducive to having productive conversations about solutions. In order to mitigate some of the worst types of discussions, the Inspire team has developed a set of expectations for participants in the IdeaLab pages.

The Inspire campaign has the potential to be an important step in making the projects a more diverse and inclusive place. However, without the support of the community, these expectations are not enforceable. Feedback on the page is welcome, and, if possible, help would be appreciated to watch the IdeaLab pages for incidents of harassment and disruption. By engaging on the appropriate discussions about the Inspire campaign and modeling the positive behaviors that are laid out there, we can help educate and convince other users to consider the manner of their interactions, and whether it meets those standards. There is going to be some interesting proposals, and, hopefully, some lively, collaborative, and productive conversations about how our projects can meet this challenge. Regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • As we're heading into the weekend in North America, staff will be reviewing any feedback, but probably not responding until Monday morning :) PEarley (WMF) (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This is amazing! If only Wikipedia had (and enforced) these rules. harej (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)