Community noticeboard

Template with optional parameter
Hello, i'm creating a template and i want to make one line in table optional - when there's no data it doesn't shown. I used example from mediawiki:


 * label1=Text


 * data1=

It works correctly, but when i define a "|text" in article label and data are shown to. Like <<|text=abcde>> and it shows like <> What's wrong and how to show clear "text" without showing label and data? Thanks.

Problems with image files
i've started using miraheze and in general mediawiki recently and everything seems to be fine except a weird issue with images, i can t update them as they stay as the original and even if i delete and reuploud the better file it doesn't change and also a problem with transparency but mainly just photos not updating.

Someone let me know or something. is it just the how the images work and it takes awhile to change how it looks?
 * Re-uploading images should take a while, I think about 10 minutes. Is it taking more? What exactly is the issue with transparency? Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 19:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

With tranparency it might just be the same issue and a picture i uplouded is still showing up as its old lower qualit self, that i uplouded yesterday, so thats why i was asking ArchyArc (talk)
 * Hm, I'm not to good with images but I don't think the quality can really be affected by this except if you uploaded a low quality image and then replaced it with a high quality one. Maybe someone else knows more about this? Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 18:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well in some cases thats what i did but i also deleted the image then reuplouded it but still shows the low quality version but at the higher quality resolution, and its understandable if you dont know, thanks for trying to help ArchyArc (talk)

You meantioned about uplouding higher quality images ontop of lower qualit ones/older versions that are smaller, thats my issue and i cant fix it for the life of me ArchyArc (talk)


 * On Wikia, we had a chronic problem with "sticky" thumbnails. Your higher-resolution image might be aboard even if the thumbnail in the File: page shows the older version.  Please verify that the preferred file didn't upload.  Also, please verify that you have flushed your cache; that is, your browser might still be using an older version of the photo stored on your PC.  Your browser asks Miraheze if it has a "newer" photo and avoids downloads when it seems that a suitable file is already in your own cache.   17:01 27-Oct-2017
 * In addition to what Spike the Dog said, please also make sure you have waited a bit after the image was reuploaded. If you are still experiencing issues with this even after following what Spike the Dog said please tell me and I will look into it. You might also want to create a Phabricator task if the issue persists.

So tried doing what spike said and to no avail, it still shows as the low quality image, im not sure what else to do i might have to make that phabricator task then. ArchyArc (talk)


 * Before proceeding, please be precise: It "shows as the low quality image" or it is low-quality? That is, is it just that the preview looks wrong, or does Miraheze really still have the wrong version?  Try reuploading again and look at the response page carefully: Is it a new page in the File: space or is it the original request page, plus a colorful warning that part of your request is missing or in error?  I was in this situation once regarding the failure of new pages to get included in a DPL directory of new pages, and a background task had stalled, so maybe it is worth a Phabricator ticket.   19:49 27-Oct-2017

With the images, an actual example was the picture was like... 60x60 (simplified) and i uplouded a 180x180 version of the same picture (Even tried with a completely different picture and had the same result) it showed the original 60x60 at the 180x180 resolution making it all blurry, so if i clicked on the actual image it would be 60x60 but even on the file:___ preview it was 180x180 and on wiki pages making it blurry. ill go and see about the phabricator thing now, if this is a proper issue ArchyArc (talk)

File uploading size limit
I want to upload audio files to my wiki, although most of them are over the 40 MB limit. CoolieCoolster (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It will reduce your size requirements to use the MP3 format. This is not supported on a standard Miraheze wiki but I requested the extension to be installed at TheMirror.  You can reduce the filesize further by recording monaural and dialing the quality down to 22 KHz.   01:44 27-Oct-2017
 * I converted one audio file from mp3 to ogg, which nearly halved its file size. I will try lowering the quality, which should get the audio file below the 40 MB limit.CoolieCoolster (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Converted several other files from MP3 to OGG and it seems that it only removes 15 MB.CoolieCoolster (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are trying to upload Ted Cruz's 23-hour Obama-care speech to the U.S. Senate?  14:53 27-Oct-2017
 * If you are trying to upload a relatively large file, maybe you should try using Zip. If you need to be able to upload zip files feel free to request that. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 15:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Coolie can verify on his computer that zipping a file reduces its size. This is doubtful; unlike text, audio files do not have a lot of recurring strings that can be replaced by a single copy and pointers.  If Coolie's wiki would benefit from Zips, Reception123 should tell Coolie which extension to request.  I don't see "zip" anywhere in the list of Extensions.   17:05 27-Oct-2017
 * I need a file extension that would work with the audio player, which it seems primarily uses the OGG file extension. I managed to reduce a MP3 file from 90 MB to 25 MB by lowering the quality, however I think simply using the YouTube widget would be an better solution.CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

MWException errors
I'm continually getting MWException errors on allthetropes.org, even when editing. Anyone else getting these? --Walkden1986 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This was because of an error with an extension on allthetropes. It was fixed shortly after. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 09:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Formation of Code of Conduct Commission
Following the closure of Requests for Comment/Amendment of Code of Conduct, September 2017, we now need to elect members to this new Commission. I intend for the process to be as follows: Any user who disagrees with the process is welcome to discuss below to amend it. -- Void  Whispers 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) For a minimum of one week, or until the community decides it is ready, users will be allowed to nominate themselves and others for the position on the Community noticeboard. All users nominated by others must somewhere signify acceptance to their nomination before this period closes. During this period, the Steward and Staff bodies should pick their members.
 * 2) Individual requests for each nominee will be opened in a central location (for now Meta:Requests for permissions, although a discussion in the interim may change the location). These requests will be open for at least a week to allow for participation. The two requests with the most support will be successful.

Nominations
Please keep this section for nominations only. Please talk about the nominations on Discussion sections. I will leave your 'comments' as is for next 24 or 48 hours, then move it to Discussion sections. &mdash; revi  08:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any comment that is not nomination (ie. I nominate myself, or I nominate $big_brother / accepting the nomination) will be moved to discussion after 48 hours, if you haven't done yourself. &mdash; revi  09:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for overturning my previous comment, but realized I should've done this right away. Please comment about things on Discussion section, and not in Nominations. Thank you. &mdash; revi  09:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add yourself or another user here. If nominating another user, please notify them so they can accept.
 * I, CnocBride, hereby announce my nomination to run for a position on the Code of Conduct Commission. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  22:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also have the intention and I am willing to be part of the Code of Conduct Commission. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 01:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to nominate John as a Commission member. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 06:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accepted. John (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Acceptance pulled. Toxicity remains in that ATT users wish to continue pilling on to oust me from the community and service again. John (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to nominate LulzKiller as a Commission member. Of all of the admins at the largest wiki hosted at Miraheze, he has the most experience with what this Commission would be dealing with. --Robkelk (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Salient point there. At any rate, I would like to nominate User:CnocBride and User:AlvaroMolina as possible candidates for this position. GethN7 (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Please note these things when applying:
 * If you are accepted, we (system administrators) will collect your email address so you can receive mails sent to conduct@undefinedmiraheze.org, and it will be stored forever in publicly visible place (GitHub).
 * You are expected to be around (not kind of requiring you to respond in 6 hours or like, just checking your inbox regularly) during your terms.
 * As a member of organization that enforces Code of Conduct, you are held to higher standard than ordinary users. You may face less leeway than other users.
 * We currently have lots of things to clarify that is left to Commission's discretion (election rules, etc). You have to be willing to participate in such discussion.
 * &mdash; revi</tt>  06:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is John eligible? His User page says that he left Miraheze on May 25 2017. --Robkelk (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any user is eligible regardless of what their userpage may or may not say. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 12:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * John was the co-founder of Miraheze but left Operations on that date. He is still a member of the community and remains active. - CnocBride
 * Plus I've only just now been able to edit my own user page. John (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope that the comment about somebody being co-founder does not imply that you or anyone else believes that fact should give him special privileges. Being co-founder should not matter at all, and IMHO should not even have been mentioned. --Robkelk (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a user should, well, be actively using the service. Someone who exiled himself from the wiki farm does not fit a common-sense definition of "user" (unless he's been accessing Miraheze under a sockpuppet, which brings up honesty and trust issues).  If in fact John has actually been absent from Miraheze for these last several months, that seems like a prima facie example of a former user -- or at least, an inactive one.  In which case nominating him seems suspiciously like bringing in a ringer.  I think maybe before we start nominating candidates, we define was constitutes an acceptable candidate.  If there are no minimum requirements, we might as well nominate everyone's favorite troublemaker on the grounds that they are quite definitely a user. --Looney Toons (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been using the service actively since July, having taken back my operations responsibility for most of August and September to keep the service running. For most of that time I was the only active volunteer with advanced access to the service involving root and upstream service accounts who responded fairly regularly and actively to downtime during those periods. I never exiled myself, I rescinded my access but remained around and since July after settling into my new job have been providing advice and support to the technical team behind the platform. John (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looney Toons, I believe your comment is badly grounded and has no solid evidence. John left for a period for legitimate reasons and I understand your doubt to nominate him due to his inactivity but I believe your reasoning to be slightly naive. John along with SPF set up this great service and worked on it for years and continues to do so behind the scenes like he said. Claiming that he isn't "actively using the service", in my view, is wrong. I am a wiki creator and regularly help out on Phabricator and I also watch technical tasks that are being performed over there. A lot of the time I see John there assisting and commenting on tasks and giving everyone support which I believe is "actively using the service". Just because John hasn't been on the community side of things (wikis) doesn't mean he doesn't contribute and certainly doesn't mean he isn't active. I do agree with the minimum requirements system as a necessary check to be put in place but you should bring this up with Void or another steward. Again, these accusations of inactivity are totally groundless. John is a worthy and suitable candidate and I believe he is one of the right men for the job! &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  00:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a valid point LT is making: John hasn't been a public presence, which would be a vital factor in a policy that affects public facing material like conduct enforcement. What LT is trying to say is that John has, by his own choice, chosen to withdraw from those responsibilities of his own will, and if he were to resume them, it would be best if he resumed lesser duties of a similar nature to prove to both new and old users, especially the former, he is more than qualified to represent them fairly and effectively. GethN7 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * John has been active mostly everywhere. He has made edits to Meta, helped with tasks on Phabricator, been around all the time on IRC, commented and helped with GitHub pull requests, so I find that stating John has not been active is incorrect. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 06:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your discomfort of allowing John on to the COC due to past differences and because of his lack of "public activity" on the community. John is a good man and he does plenty of things for Mirahaze in the past and in the present. Even though you don't see him very much anymore, as Reception said above, he is pretty active on other services. I still believe John is eligible &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  11:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, Amanda has a more visible presence on Meta than John does. We need a clear statement of who is or is not a user in the context of Reception123's statement. --Robkelk (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the original wording I had for the close went something along the lines of "Any user in good standing with the community could nominate themselves." However, I also realized that defining "good standing" would also be somewhat difficult to handle at this stage. What I concluded instead is that no one would vote for someone who they believed to have misbehaved. Therefore, there would be no need to say who could and could not apply now, because the community would have the chance to sort it out later in the voting period. Voidwalker (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of those who are as non partisan and who have a little partisanship as possible to be in charge of this position. For those reasons, I would have reservations about EITHER User:John or User:LulzKiller being an enforcer of such policies. I remind everyone the former, of his own free will, flounced from public enforcement of policy when he felt under undue pressure and effectively surrendered his powers for an indefinite duration, until now. The latter, on the other hand, played a role in antagonizing the former over belief in their incompetence to perform those duties, which, whether it had truth to it, was unduly harsh and done largely to dig glass into raw wounds. Ideally, the only parties who should have any role in enforcing conduct and rules are those who have no partisanship in either direction and can be trusted to show as little bias either way as possible. GethN7 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I didn't flounce due to pressure. I resigned because no sane human would volunteer long gruelling hours in a stressful environment to be harassed and abused for them then go to work (on little sleep) and do it all over again. I wish LK's behaviour was antagonising behaviour but it was far from it. John (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No human is without bias. In positions of this nature, one needs to be able to put one's biases aside and work together. Can each of the current nominees show evidence of being able to do this? Can anyone show evidence that a current nominee is not able to do this? --Robkelk (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think someone without a wiki of their own to focus on would be the ideal candidate for the code of conduct commission. No matter what some people think about other people, I think most of the people on Miraheze have similar goals, so I think people should set aside their negative opinions of each other at least temporarily in order to make sure we have the right people on this commission. CoolieCoolster (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  11:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think that the way some users treated John has been a shame, the user, despite having temporarily withdrawn and having renounced his advanced permits, is still part of the community and has continued to work in other areas. linked to Miraheze by assisting in IRC and helping the sysadmins with some tasks. Also, as a co-founder of Miraheze he could have done an excellent job in the Commission. Regards. —<font color="#1406D0">Alvaro Molina (<font color="#137500">✉  - <font color="#137500">✔ ) 11:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly which users have mistreated John? What I see is:
 * John was nominated and accepted the nomination;
 * I asked whether someone who publicly stated he had left Miraheze months ago was eligible;
 * Reception123 stated that any user (his emphasis) was eligible;
 * Looney Toons and GethN7 asked whether somebody who was working behind the scenes was a user;
 * John withdrew his nomination, blaming "toxicity".
 * And, as I said earlier, being a co-founder should not make any difference or give anyone special privileges. I also point out revi's statement at the very start of this section: "As a member of organization that enforces Code of Conduct, you are held to higher standard than ordinary users. You may face less leeway than other users." If someone cannot handle questions about whether he qualifies for the position, would he feel comfortable being held to higher standard than ordinary users? --Robkelk (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I may not have been on Miraheze for very long, but I can clearly see that some people are not treating John fairly in comparison to other users. I used to edit Wikipedia, and it seemed that on Wikipedia people treated each other with more respect, or at least gave other users more time to explain themselves and were more open to their answers. Perhaps that is just because there are hundreds of thousands of people editing Wikipedia, compared to just a couple hundred editors on Miraheze, however I think that even with only a couple hundred people we can still treat each other fairly and not simply dismiss someone's thoughts outright because of opinions or biases held about that person. If everyone wants Miraheze, and therefore their own wikis, to improve, we can't keep throwing stones at each other. CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, "If someone cannot handle questions about whether he qualifies for the position, would he feel comfortable being held to higher standard than ordinary users?" - I never answered the questions because I don't think it's my place to tell people how to think about me - since it's quite clear everyone has made their mind up. The statement is "any user" therefore, yes I qualify. I didn't withdraw because I can't answer - I withdrew because ATT decided to witch hunt me stating facts with no research and no informed conclusions. I am active, but no one bothered to do the research. John (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * John, I am saddened that you cannot look past your biases regarding ATT and look at the questions being asked simply as questions being asked no matter who is asking them. Asking the questions is itself the process of doing the research - we need the answers and the transparency in gathering the information in order to be able to make up our minds. --Robkelk (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no bias to look past. You asked if I am eligible and you received a reply before I read it. Another ATT user then comes and asks the same question stating I am not active - I answer proving I am. A third then comes repeating a similar point which I had answered to the second user. The statements made were I am not active - which implied you researched when making the statements. You don't go up to someone and go "Your name is Dave. What is your name?". Also I recommend people don't accuse me of bias when they seem to have their own assuming because I was nominated, its some co-ordinated plot because of who I am. I guarantee if this was any other user that statement would not have been made. John (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * John being the co-founder indeed makes no difference whatsoever regarding his eligibility as a Commission member. To address the whole userpage issue, if someone had something inappropriate on their userpage, it would have been removed by administrators, and if it was still there and the user refused to take it off, the user would have been blocked. In John's case he could not change the content due to his userpage being sysop protected. Even though John has withdrawn his acceptance of the nomination, I still don't see why he would not have been eligible. Unless a user is blocked or globally locked, there shouldn't be any reason for why they shouldn't be eligible to be a commission member. If you believe that a user shouldn't be a commission member that should be kept for the voting phase. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 18:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal on timeline
I propose we end nomination period by one week after void's posting this section (23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)) and enter the voting period. We already have around 2x allocated seats for the commission. I also propose we make a vote on dedicated page like Code of Conduct/Commission/Election/2017. &mdash; revi</tt>  10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As of this posting, we have two accepted nominations for two posts. That's hardly "2x allocated". --Robkelk (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was counting John. Yup. Still, I don't see value delaying this for more than a week. &mdash; revi</tt>  13:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel uncomfortable with the idea of the inaugural staffing of the Commission being by acclamation, no matter who the people essentially being appointed are. --Robkelk (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A dedicated page is a good idea, after all, we most likely be using a similar process next year. Voidwalker (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that having only 2 users nominated and them being "automatically" made members isn't a too good idea. Though I believe the one week limit for nominations is more than enough, and if anyone wants to nominate someone they have sufficient time. As for the dedicated page I agree that there should be one, since there will be yearly elections. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 18:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Merging and Renaming Wikis
I originally created Timpedia and Unmapedia as two seperate wikis for two different podcasts, however Unmapedia barely had any articles so I simply decided to import all the articles from Unmapedia into Timpedia to create a central database of information. I also added information about a third podcast, and am considering adding information about more podcasts. The subdomain for Timpedia, "hellointernet", no longer reflects the entire purpose of the wiki. Before I decide what to do, I have several questions:

1. Can I redirect one Miraheze wiki to another Miraheze wiki?

2. Can the domain of a wiki be changed without having to create a new wiki and importing all the articles from the old wiki? If so, can the old domain redirect to the new domain?

CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)