Meta:Proposed page moves/Archives/2011


Anonymous user

As per

I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, as the current article ironically already points out, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.

Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.

I propose we call a spade a spade, and change the article title to "unregistered user", or "IP user". I appreciate that the term "anonymous user" is unfortunately established, and it is a big change for both the documentation and the software, but this does not make that correct. I offer to contribute the changes necessary in the documentation and contribute patches for the software. Thank you for your consideration. 04:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaning towards unregistered user. While not entirely accurate (since registered users can also edit as IPs), it's still less ambiguous than "anonymous". It's also a form that's used by the software: for example, the default description for semi-protection says "block new and unregistered users". The naming would also be consistent with the sister article registered user. Software changes would probably not be warranted for such a minor issue, though. Jafeluv 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. In the meantime, I have rearranged the contents to reflect these considerations.
As a minor point, "registered users can also edit as IPs" is only true if you refer to "user" as a physical person. However, administrative software (and MeadiaWiki so far as I can tell is no exception) typically identifies users not by the human being who is using the system, but by their screen name (be it an account or an IP address). 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  Done Ruslik 17:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


Category:Global Sysops

I think that we should not capitalize the "S" from "Sysops". In the original page isn't capitalized either and should not be too (not an own name). Listing here for discussion. I have a bot to do the move if there's consensus to move this category. Thanks, -- Dferg ☎ talk 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed. More than a month has passed and consensus for option number 2 has been achieved per this discussion. A bot will be moving the categories in the following days. -- Dferg 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Steward requests archive

Hello. Bringing this for discussion. The category was splitted by User:Ruy Pugliesi days ago, others may see it so I'm proposing several options:

  1. Unsplit and get the category as it was in the past.
  2. Leave it splitted but instead of those too much long category names, rename those categories to shorter, more identifiable and accurate names such as:
    1. Category:Steward requests for bot status archiveCategory:Steward requests archive/Bot status
    2. Category:Steward requests for CheckUser information archiveCategory:Steward requests archive/Checkuser
    3. Category:Steward requests for global locks archiveCategory:Steward requests archive/Global
    4. Category:Steward requests for global permissions archiveCategory:Steward requests archive/Global permissions
    5. Category:Steward requests for permissions archiveCategory:Steward requests archive/Permissions
    6. Category:Steward requests for SUL issues archiveCategory:Steward requests archive/SUL requests
    7. Category:Steward requests for username changes archiveCategory:Steward requests archive/Username changes
  3. Leave things as they are now.

If the result it to unsplit again or to rename the categories, I'm offering my bot services to do that. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd not have touched them, but I'd go for option number 2 if splitting is really what the community wants. Much more easier and shorter IMHO. Kind regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I support the second option too. I think that's easier to work with (the names of the categories are easier to understand). Trijnstel 19:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Btw, is there a possibility to add the archives automatically in the right category? This didn't happen now with Steward requests/Bot status/2011-07 for example. I know that Quentinv57 is away for a week, but it's something we might think about in the meantime. Trijnstel 19:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is possible. I created a template many months ago to construct the skeleton of the archives and added the default category. Can be modifyied to work with the new cats. -- Dferg ☎ talk 19:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
        • If the categories are changing, my bot should change it as well when it automatically creates archival pages (the 27th day of each month). Please just left a message on my user talk page when you close this discussion if I need to change something. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I'll go with option #2 in 24 hours unless objections. More than a month of discussion looks enough to me. -- Dferg 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose option #2. I find it a bit weird to use 'bars' in category names, and there is no gain by applying such cosmetic changes in a lot of pages. Anyway, I guess it would better keeping them splitted, once it makes easier and faster to find anything over there. Ruy Pugliesi 02:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    Funny - I think that you missinterpret what they are cosmetic changes and fixing something broken. No gain is messing into the stewards organization without consultation and that's what you did. The category names chosen by you are too large; and their names make no sense. It's worth moving them for clarity. -- Dferg 09:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with opinion #2. Anyway, splitting these categories was a good thing, but it would be better with the names that Dferg proposed. Ruy Pugliesli is speaking about facility and rapidity, and that's why we should use those names. Fristly because it will be so much easier for a bot to understand them, and then because it's also more logical to have subcategories of Category:Steward requests archive. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Dferg and Quentinv57. Is easier to find something if the cat has the same name of the pages. I would say Dferg to start move things around, and - if you need help, - Lucia is not doing anything today. ;) Béria Lima msg 13:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Image filter referendum

General discussion about the name "referendum" and the meaning of the current poll is taking place at Talk:Image filter referendum/en/Referendum.

The proposal is to move Image filter referendum to Consultation on image filter implementation details. As per typical Wikipedia move proposals, i assume that people should add support or reject with reasons, for consensus-building.

Reason: Given that the en.Wikipedia article w:Referendum states that "A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal." but the content of the page Image filter referendum states unambiguously (e.g. see the "will" analysis at Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en#will_or_would_be_implemented.3F) that the consultation only concerns how to implement the filter, not whether to accept or reject the filter, the present name is misleading. Use of the word "consultation" alone (e.g. Image filter consultation) would not be enough, since it would still be ambiguous, letting some people think that Wikipedians are being consulted about the choice of whether or not to implement the filter. The word "details" is needed to make it clear that the consultation is about the details, not about the main decision. This is why I'm proposing a longer title - I can't think of a shorter, accurate title. Boud 10:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. Support move to Survey on image filter priorities , it's not a consultation it is a classic survey - with question bias - each of the questions starts with "It is important that..." followed by some intrinsically appealing statement. Some of these are in direct contradiction on the face of it (for example a culturally neutral set of filters as opposed to "5-10 filters"). The rubric makes it clear that the survey is intended to gauge the communities' relative priorities. Rich Farmbrough 10:52 17 August 2011 (GMT).
  2. Support No one asks if the filter will be implemented. It's only a question about implementation details, ignoring any democratic aspect if to implement it or not. I'm sure the German community will deny the idea to use the filter at all, even if implemented. The latest vote on censorship was the question which content would be acceptable for the main page. It closed with 233:13 (sic!) to not do any (self)censoring at all and that any topic or image is representable on the main page.[1] Currently a second poll is under development that questions if the German community is willing to accept the referendum. I doubt that the quota will be much better.[2] --Niabot 11:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support! And thanks Boud to have pointed out all the "will"s on the page that escaped my attention in the fleeting reading. I agree with Rich Farmbrough concerning the bias in the formulation of the referendum questions.--Dia^ 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. The first question is whether it is important for the Wikimedia Foundation to offer this feature to readers. I am hopeful that the voting will run heavily against this proposal and that it will ultimately be abandoned. And "will", in the context of software development, is a very vague term under the best of circumstances. Also, I think that tampering with the poll while it is being taken - even so much as putting a move banner over it - risks reducing its legitimacy, and because I think I'm going to like what it says I want to preserve that legitimacy. N.B. I was invited to vote on this on my en talk page by Boud. Wnt 14:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    comment i don't follow why a vote that the feature is of "low importance" is likely to lead to the feature ultimately being abandoned. "Low importance" can easily be interpreted as "the community does not object to the Board's decision to implement the feature". i'll quote from the talk page: "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers." - again, there are two separate questions here that have been rolled into one. (a) should the Wikimedia projects offer this feature to readers?, and (b) how important is it to offer this feature? Although answering (b) implies support of (a), asking about importance is a very separate question from whether the feature should or should not be enabled. If the majority of the community believe that Wikimedia shouldn't allow this feature, then the importance doesn't particularly matter. (in contrast to: if the feature is rated as low-importance, then that could mean that the WMF still funds its development and implementation but doesn't rate its development as highly as if it were high importance). Mike Peel 21:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)" Low importance does not mean strong opposition. A high (or low) cost of fish in the US state of Illinois is of low importance to me, as are about a zillion other subjects - but i'm not opposed to Illinois fisherpeople raising (or lowering) the price of their fish. They should (and do) ignore my opinion on the issue. Boud 19:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    The vote is formally advertised as a vote on an opt-in scheme affecting the view for some users. So conceptually, if we ignore funding/manpower considerations and slowing or errors in page loads, the impact of creating this "feature" should not be worse than zero. Such considerations can be described by saying that WMF has more important projects to do, and marginally smaller and faster pages are of more than zero importance. So I think - properly interpreted - it should be sufficient to vote zero importance and move on. Put it this way: if this poll comes out with a majority of "zero" votes and the WMF still moves ahead with this, I'd want to cry foul, and vote against the board members responsible in the next election. So that means I have to accept it as a referendum on the issue. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wnt (talk) 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I totally agree with Wnt. I'm actually glad that Boud canvassed on his talk page and got him here so I could pile-on. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support "Referndum" is a misleading title. In fact we can't change anything by it, the Foundation's decision is definitive... Chaddy 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    Note: I've removed the request off of the page. The template only servers to confuse readers as they visit and moving the page in the middle of a high traffic vote like this is unacceptable (not the least of which is issues like having to re translate all the places the name is used). Jalexander 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    On the contrary, for a WMF Associate Community Officer (ACO) to freeze in an error made by the Board of Trustees when the community is putting in time and effort to correct the error through an open consensus process sounds unacceptable to me. In your role as ACO, you should be a servant of the community and not vice versa, IMHO. You seem to have misunderstood the process: if the community feels that the title is misleading and needs to be changed and comes to consensus, i don't see why a WMF Associate Community Officer should override us. Instead, your job role sounds like you should be the one explaining to the Board that the community has noticed the Board's error and confusion and suggest to the Board an unambiguous and consensual way to correct its error. The responsibility for confusion lies with the Board. There is even confusion about whether the word "will" should be taken literally - Wnt apparently believes that the meaning intended by the Board is "would". Maybe Wnt is right (i'm not convinced), but when people have to guess at meanings of ambiguous words, the chance of a clear decision is low. Boud 19:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Folks, this is insane. There has been a public opportunity for comment for weeks. The pages have been here. The questions have been here. Now that the thing is up, and running, on 280 language sites, NOW you want to change the name? The image filter work is being done at the behest of the Board of Trustees, and the Foundation intends to execute their resolution. I'm sorry... I know the language isn't perfect. I get that. I wish it were too. But we can't be moving highly visible pages in the middle of an election. We're nearly halfway done. Let's let the thing ride, then worry about things like what to call it, okay? Philippe (WMF) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    As usual a great job of communication was done. CONGRATULATIONS! Nobody noticed it until the cat was out of the back. It's very promising that decisions are made first, then the people (other projects then meta) will be asked which variation of evil they like to chose. An real world example for this kind of politic would be define that all have to die. But at least we would be kind enough to ask which way of dying they would prefer. --Niabot 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    It was intentionally? hidden at least from the German community. When it comes to draw money from us its ok, but otherwise you dont care about one of the largest chapters. -- 06:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    It doesn't seem to have been hidden, intentionally or otherwise. :/ It was published in the Kurier. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    Don't worry, there are many IPs spreading as many lies as they possibly can out of desperation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    Redirects are cheap my good sir. --Cybercobra 05:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    Indeed, I'm afraid the process here has been broken by the use of language (and other factors) to such an extent that the result will be worthless anyway. Moving the page might reduce the confusion a little, and it certainly won't increase it. But maybe it is simply rearranging deck-chairs. Rich Farmbrough 14:59 18 August 2011 (GMT).
  8. Oppose per User:Wnt and others, to avoid additional confusion by moving the page in the middle of the vote. -Mdennis (WMF) 19:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    Certainly we don't want additional confusion, but a more accurate page name would mean less confusion. Rich Farmbrough 14:59 18 August 2011 (GMT).
  9. Oppose I agree with absolutely everyone else that the word referendum is indeed incorrect and misleading, and wish it had been noticed and discussed sooner. However, making an overall change in the middle of the vote seems completely unacceptable. As a compromise, how about adding a subhead " - Consultation on implementation details"? Dcrjsr 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    I would gladly support this. But at least it should sound right. My proposal would be "Choose your personal devil" or "We cooked the fucking soup already, now choose how you like it to be served. With spoon or licking it from the ground?". --Niabot 00:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    Support - wrong label for a evil thing. -- 06:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    This isn't a "vote" nor do IPs get one. You can log in to contribute, especially since the only way to know about this is to have received an email or to have been canvassed. Either way, you have an account and you should use it if you haven't already. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  10. Support - As others have explained it is not a referendum but more like a consultation or survey. The page is confusing, so anything that increases the clarity is good. Inspite me being an experienced Wikipedia admin it took me a lot of reading and thinking to grasp what it was all about. --David Göthberg 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  11. Support - Whatever the merits of the proposal, this exercise is simply not a referendum. When I saw the banner I imagined a proposal had been made and I'd be able to vote on whether it should be implemented, along with secondary questions about the details should it be implemented. Instead I find that the obvious question, "should we do this or not?", has already been answered, and I get no say on the matter and am asked only to offer some opinions about the details. Clearly, the title is misleading. We are not even voting. This is an opinion survey with rating scales, not a vote. Trilobite 05:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  12. Neutral: the current title is certainly misleading and made us all think that this consultation would have been something completely different, so the page move would help people understand better; but having two names for the same thing at this point would also add confusion. The damage is done and the process is now hopelessly broken. --Nemo 12:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  13. Support - the current title is aggressively deceptive. By changing it to say what it actually is, we allow voters to understand that they are not being consulted about whether the filter should be implemented, and we prevent those interpreting the results from pretending (to themselves or to others) that those results address whether the filter should be implemented. --Pi zero 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  14. Support - Yes it's bad to move this in the middle of the vote, but Wikimedians are not the only ones being misled [3]. --NYKevin 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    Wow, that article says nothing about "misled" or anything even close as your claim suggests. It is actually very neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Wnt and Mdennis -- Quentinv57 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  16. Support moving to a more descriptive title. Or, failing that: Support the proposal by Dcrjsr: Add a subheading to the page. (in fact, we acn do that right now... proceeding to do so -edit: dang, page is locked.) --Kim Bruning 13:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  17. Support - In favour of a non-misleading name, even at this late stage. A brief reading of the article still left me with the impression that the vote would determine if this would be implemented or not (with a notable absence of the arguments for and against). Only reading the discussion page made me understand exactly what this was: extremely unprincipled! --xensyriaT 21:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Per Phillipe. The wanting to rename is just more disruption by a small minority who is bent on using logged out IPs, multiple IPs, etc., to try and stop the filter "at all costs". The WMF would do good to block those people and crack down on the nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You forgot {{Citation needed}} at the end of your comment, since you used words like "small minority" or claim that people would not write under their own name. Where is the source for «"at all costs"»? Why should the WMF listen to someone that makes harsh claims without giving any source? (I laughed, - a little...) --Niabot 19:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Really? Odd. There isn't even a majority on that talk page of users who are promoting it once you remove the duplicate IPs and see that the representation is mostly from Germany and the Netherlands. You show your desperation in the matter by your resorting to vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You claim again that this are duplicate IPs. Where is your proof? I just run a script to extract the IPs, made sure to not count them multiple times, checked them against utrace and came to the conclusion that half of the IPs are from US and GB, while the rest is spread out around the world with Europe (not only Germany and Netherlands) as the strongweight. This includes IPs from Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Sweden, Danmark, Germany, Netherlands, Canada, France, Spain, Poland, and so on. Still sure that "citation needed" shouldn't be added? ;-) --Niabot 02:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. Oppose renaming at this stage, but support adding a more accurate subheading (including a note that it was added partway through). Yes, the wording is inconsistent with it being called a referendum, but changing the title at this stage is just likely to muddy the waters further. --Avenue 01:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pages by language

That is a proposal to reorganize all pages (and media) in pages by language subcategories.

I will use the category FR as case in point because that is a big category with almost all "problems" that can be found in the other ones.


Now that category has 9 subcats (with more a few sub-sub cats), 14 medias and 159 pages. My proposal is to transform that category in a main category without absolutely no pages or media in it and only with sub categories. To that, i propose to:

1. Move all media here to Wikimedia Commons. There are no point in duplicate media, and all of it should be in commons in the first place.
2. Move all pages who are translations to category Translations fr (per translation here i mean all translation for pages who will be used in other wikis)
3. Move all pages who are local pages written in french (like translations of meta policies) to Category:Pages in French (to be created) and subcats - if necessary - as per example "Meta policies in French".
4. Detele the category Français (who has the same propose of Translations fr), and transfer all files to this category.
Explanation to that: The categories with the name of the language are from 2008, and the other ones are from 2006. Besides that, the "translations XX" categories are padronized and easier to find. A category with a name of العرب or Русский is impossible to write for people who are not a native speaker.
5. Create the category "Organizations with French as official language" and categorize all Wikimedia chapters in it.

Observation: To avoid RC flood, all recategorization will be made by Lucia Bot. Béria Lima msg 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments and opinions

  •   Comment I've discuss these changes with Beria and I'm okay with it. Please see this page to see the previous request, that I never had time to do. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Beria's proposal makes sense, its just cleaning up the categories. I see no reason to object. Theo10011 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support, sounds fine to me, the current categorization is a mess - Hoo man (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support per all. Makes sense. — Tanvir | Talk ] 14:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support. No reason not to. Ruy Pugliesi 15:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support. No issues and makes sense. Email Vaibhav Talk 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • By point.
    1. This shouldn't be a big problem, it's just hard work. :-) I'm not sure there is always a sensible category on Commons, but quite often there will be (as in this case) the category of the chapter to collect presentations and similar files which used to be collected on Meta. I wonder whether we'll be able to actually have a central hub for all such files and start again to share them actively.
    2. Obvious.
    3. Please don't: this system is already a bit weird and few people remember to follow it; changing names after such a long time will only add confusion and the new proposed name is just too long.
    4. Obvious. The argument about codes applies to the previous point as well.
    5. No discussion needed. :-) The categorization will just be as imperfect as it is now. Nemo 16:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)