Community noticeboard

Vote
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I have a question for you: should we have a wiki on here like the Wiki Gazetteer on FANDOM? Put your vote in the headings below! And remember to sign your posts with ~. Tali64³ (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Why not? This would not be a bad idea for someone looking for a specific wiki. --Furricane (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) per  InspecterAbdel (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I strongly support this because we can find more specific wikis.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 21:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm not opposed to this idea, in theory, and I do think that we need to rethink Gazetteer of wikis given that we have ~3,800 current wikis (which is too large for a single page). My main concern, which I expressed in declining the wiki request, was that this may suffer from lack of maintenance and timely updates. As well, by siphoning it away from Meta, we now have yet another wiki we have to somehow promote, so that sort of defeats the purpose of a gazetteer of wikis designed to promote customers' public wikis, doesn't it? Secondarily, I honestly think a better way to go about this is to add additional functionality and data output to the automated list, Special:WikiDiscover. That said, it's a good-faith idea, in theory and if well-maintained, so that is why I am expressing some support, albeit weak. Dmehus (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) I think this will help in finding wikis. Admittedly, there was once a list on Wikia, but we've dropped it. Onmp314 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are still two: the Wiki Wiki and the Wiki Gazetteer. Tali64³ (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No

 * 1)  I don't see the need for an entire wiki like this. We already have a page here on meta, Gazetteer of wikis. And in all honesty, a page on meta will most likely be given more notice than another external wiki that some will never visit. As such I am opposing this idea. While a good thought I don't see the need for it. I mean if you want it, go for you, but I don't think it should be a community wiki at all.  15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * There are wikis currently on Miraheze, too big to list on one page. An administrator could put a link to it on the main page. Tali64³ (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We also have Special:WikiDiscover which lists every wiki on Miraheze. 14:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 1)  Not needed.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  if there were a lot of people to add entries for wikis with short descriptions that would work for me but right now I think that the Meta gazeteer is enough and is helpful. DeeM28 (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) A wiki for this is unnecessary, Gazetteer of wikis on Meta works fine. If there was a way to automate it with Special:WikiDiscover, I might rethink it, but otherwise this would likely get really outdated long-term. K599 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) and I would like to note, wiki creations are at the sole discretion of wiki creators and global policy, and I view this as a way to circumvent a decline of mine. Thus, I also recommend a closure of this as not done. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 05:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) There is gazetteer of wikis. (But that alone may not fit.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waki285 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 2 December 2020‎ (UTC)
 * 6) I kind of think it's a good idea, but there'd be too many problems. Waldo (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain
I think it's a fair enough idea but there are many ways to approach it and would need lots of maintenance and would probably create some form of conflict -Bayugoon (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 1) I'm currently been slowly working on a similar idea over the past month or two just documenting wikis: the Wikiverse. dibbydib 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) As a Miraheze wiki creator, when this wiki truly passes through us for approval (I have recently accidentally approved this wiki sent in by, which due to the ongoing discussion and the incorrect subdomain is currently pending steward review for deletion), it is important for us to know when to approve the wiki and who will be creating it. Therefore, who will be the founding Bureaucrat of the wiki if it passes community discussion?  14:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * I would be the founder. Tali64³ (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When having community discussions like these, who will be the founder is among what should be discussed. I believe who should be the founder should be among what is discussed here. Thanks! 02:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 1) Relisting for another couple of weeks. Dmehus (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Relisting for another several weeks. Dmehus (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) For those of you who oppose this on the grounds that it would get outdated, if this proposal passes, I'm planning to make a bot that works with Special:WikiDiscover to add entries. Tali64³ (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A new wiki for the website's community
The Miraheze Community Wiki is a wiki for the community so people can get to know each other and welcome each other. I know Meta does that, but I think we need a wiki for that stuff.

Support

 * 1) I think we need a wiki for this kind of thing InspecterAbdel (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) but not per any of the above or below, but because community noticeboard has become a catch-all for technical support questions, community discussions, and really anything. The organization is weak, and we could use a community wiki. I have no objections to it, but the main reason for my oppose  weak support here is because the purpose is somewhat vague and unclear. I appreciate  bringing this for a community discussion, though, and, since this wiki was simultaneously submitted for approval and created already, I think we should probably shift this wiki towards defining a clear purpose and terms of reference for its existence and the parameters by which the local   can be removed (via Community noticeboard) here on Meta. Dmehus (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)  Amended. Moved from weak oppose to weak support Dmehus (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I think we should have one since fandom has one. Plus it's subdomain is valuable too. AppleCrunchy (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I really like to have a community wiki for new users to gather, although we have a Community noticeboard.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 17:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . No, we don't need such a wiki.  This page ("community noticeboard") is exactly for this kind of thing.  I don't want to have to check both this page and a dedicated wiki to find out what is happening on the wiki farm, nor learn how such a wiki is organized.   04:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Spike. There is already not enough engagement and usage on Meta, so another wiki is really not what we need. We should focus on Meta. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) . We DO NOT need a community wiki is needed at this time. We already have this page, the community noticeboard, and Requests for Permissions, requests for global rights and requests for stewardship. It seems that it would serve the same service as as most of this meta wiki, and I just see no possible usage for this. I also agree with the comments that has made about having to go back and forth between meta and a community wiki. Sorry, it is just not going to work. --Furricane (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping you'll consider amending your !vote, per my comments above, as I really don't think 's goal was for this wiki to replace Meta. The problem with this request is that (a) the wiki shouldn't have been created without a community discussion (not, technically, a requirement, as far as I'm aware, but good practice) and (b) it should've had a clearer purpose, scope, and defined parameters, as we are doing with Dev Wiki and have done with Template Wiki and Miraheze Commons in the past. No community proposals or discussions, or even drafts of such proposals, would've occurred on this wiki. Rather, as I saw it (though vague and unclear), this wiki was meant to be a user collaboration and social connection wiki that would've actually sought to deepen community participation. Participation in this community wiki would've been completely voluntary and not participating would not have meant the user would "miss out" on important community discussions, as I don't think that was ever the intent behind 's good-faith proposal. Dmehus (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Not needed.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I do not think another wiki is necessary for the community because for me Meta is the wiki for the community. DeeM28 (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  This is unnecessary, Meta already serves essentially the same purpose, and there's not really enough of that kind of "community" activity to need a separate wiki. K599 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  After reading the first two oppose votes I agree with those users.  We should try to engage the community on Meta and we can be doing community oriented activities here.  Тишина (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I agree that the noticeboard is enough and if there was a whole wiki about the community it would be under used and it would require moving around instead of just looking at this one page Bayugoon (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think the subject is not whether we need a community wiki or not, as we already have a community-centric wiki, but whether we need a miraheze-sanctioned community wiki.I think CN is sufficient, but it seems unusual for a topic to be set up for communication purposes, so someone may need to give an example. I found an image on ja.wiktionary.org showing the stroke order of my name, so it might be a good idea to post it, but it takes courage to be the first one. --松•Matsu (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Relist to delay archiving. I will be posting an updated proposal on next steps in the next several days. Dmehus (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Relist to delay archiving. I will be posting an updated proposal on next steps in the next several days. Dmehus (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Relist to delay archiving. I will be posting an updated proposal on next steps in the next several days. Dmehus (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Steward attention requested: This really should be closed. I already posted an updated proposal, and it was closed as a "duplicate" of this discussion. Justarandomliberal (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A community Developers wiki
I have a proposition for the Miraheze community. For a while now I have been debating whether or not to create a developers wiki for Miraheze. Unlike the template wiki, this wiki will include CSS and JS scripts that anyone can import using, it will allow anyone who wants it to use scripts built by the community in their own wikis and/or in their own personal global or local JavaScript or CSS files. After consulting with on Discord, I decided to get the communities feedback and/or support on this idea, therefore what does the Miraheze community think of this idea? 22:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * Yeah, though I don't think it's required to have a community discussion in this case, since it's going to be a community wiki for shared CSS and JavaScript files, among other things potentially, I thought it would be a good practice to have the discussion, especially if it proposes to use the name "Miraheze." Plus, I think it would be helpful for the community to (a) define the initial scope and purpose and (b) establish the founding bureaucrats for the wiki. From there, the local community can help to establish its local policies and further refine its purpose. In general terms, I support this as a community wiki as I think it is sufficiently different than the Template and Miraheze Bots + Tools wikis. I also think it could be useful at reducing the page load times of community-imported and -maintained user scripts, as opposed to always loading them from English Wikipedia and other wikis. Dmehus (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, some of that is part of my initial thoughts for the reasoning of the wiki. As for using the name Miraheze in it, I think it should be called Miraheze Developers Wiki or something similar. As for bureaucrats of the wiki, any candidate recommendations? And I think a community discussion for this is a good idea. It gives the community a way to give input, and their own unique ideas in it as well. 23:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |


 * As proposer I support this, but also because I know JS and CSS pretty well, and would love to have a wiki like this for the Miraheze community. 23:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * This is a great idea for a new wiki. I think that by doing this, lots of new coding things could be enabled, including possibly global modules and gadgets. Great suggestion. I also have no concerns for this proposal. --Furricane (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I do believe that a wiki like this could be greatly beneficial in the long run, or at least I hope it can be. 23:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) ］ |


 * I support this idea because not everyone can do custom CSS and (or) custom JS. Onmp314 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea for having a central place to import JS and CSS. K599 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * per my comments above. Dmehus (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. Waldo (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * would be a nice place to ask questions with in that area Bayugoon (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Potential rename and/or expanded scope of Dev Wiki
asked me a few days, or perhaps a week, ago if I had posted in this discussion thread about the potential renaming and expanded scope for Dev Wiki yet. Other tasks took priority, but seeing as this thread was due to be archived in the next day or so, I wanted to get this done. So, I'm going to ping those that participated above and those who participated in the discussion on potential name ideas/expanded scope on Discord.

So, the question is...given that the  subdomain implies broader usage by and for developers beyond just CSS and JavaScript scripts,  and I (did I forget anyone, ?) basically toyed around with a number of potential new names and subdomains, the top three of which is identified below:


 * 1) Retain   and expand the scope, or allow the community, via a future community noticeboard discussion to expand the scope at some point in the future;
 * 2) Rename subdomain to , which would be roughly in line with the current purpose and scope, but open to possibilities later (again, the community would retain the right modify the scope via a community noticeboard discussion); or,
 * 3) Rename subdomain to , with a narrow scope; limits us in the future, but entirely accurate; it's not too bad, as we could easily create a separate dev later, though we should reserve that subdomain in the blacklist)

Since didn't participate in the Discord discussion and since this doesn't require any advanced rights to close, I nominate him to assess the consensus and close this discussion in a week or two. --Dmehus (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of RhinosF1 as closer
, please indicate if you would be willing to close this discussion after 1-2 weeks (depending on the weather-related impacts to U.S. eastern seaboard residents).

Additionally, can I get a seconder to second this nomination? (Thought we could probably safely skip a full vote on nominating an uninvolved closer.)


 * Accepted:  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  19:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC) (as nominated closer)
 * Moved: Dmehus (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC) (as nominator)
 * Seconded: 02:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * Procedural comment: This has been relisted for another two weeks. Dmehus (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: This has been relisted for another two weeks. Dmehus (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: This has been relisted for another two weeks, plus the duration set by the hidden wikicomment at the end of this thread. Dmehus (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Voting and Vote Tabulation Instructions
You are encouraged to express first and second choices in your !vote. Please do so by indicating, in your !vote for each proposal, whether it is your first or second choice. If no proposal achieves more than 50% of the valid !votes cast, the proposal with the least number of first choice !votes will be dropped, and those users' second choices will then be allocated accordingly, and the results retabulated in a second count.

Support

 * 1)   02:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * 2)  as first choice, since the community remains overall authority over this wiki in terms of its   removal (as may be required) and in terms of redefining, or broadening, its scope. Dmehus (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I think there is no need to rename. Onmp314 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  Looks nice, and is easy to understand. K599 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain
This is arguably kind of useless, in this case, since the !votes won't be counted, but I'll nonetheless include it.

Neutral/Abstain
This is arguably kind of useless, in this case, since the !votes won't be counted, but I'll nonetheless include it.
 * 1)  I like this idea as well, but it feels like it has other non-computer science-related use cases (i.e., for an archival- or museum-type wiki). Dmehus (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain
This is arguably kind of useless, in this case, since the !votes won't be counted, but I'll nonetheless include it.
 * 1)  I also liked 's idea, as it is the most specific and clearly defines this wiki's current purpose, but, at the same time, it really does restrict a future broadening of this wiki's scope to include a broader array of wiki developer resources, for which the community retains the absolute authority to redefine this wiki's purpose via community noticeboard. Dmehus (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

How to patrol recent changes effectively
In Special:RecentChanges, unpatrolled edits will have a “ ! ” mark (if you have the permission to patrol). But patrolling recent changes seems inconvenient and time-consuming.

For example, if there is an array of edits from one person on one page, these edits will be collapsed in RecentChanges. I can look at the changes made by these couple of edits in one page, but it seems I cannot patrol these edits directly — I have to patrol these edits respectively, which takes much time.

Besides, for Flow discussions, it seems I have to patrol the comments in respective pages, which is quite inconvenient.

I'm not familiar with patrolling. Is there any method to improve the efficiency of patrolling? Thanks. SolidBlock (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * SolidBlock, thank for the question, which is a good one for which I think there is no one right answer. I'll attempt to answer it with my patrolling strategies. Firstly, I usually use mainly the Special:NewPages page for patrolling, though this will only patrol new page creations across namespaces within a given timeframe (last 180 days, as far as I am aware), as I find Special:RecentChanges cumbersome from a workflow perspective for similar reasons to the ones you cited. That won't catch all recent changes, of course. So, when I do do RC patrolling, I'll usually either expand the arrow (where there are multiple changes by the same user(s)), and right-click and open the diff in a new tab, closing it once patrolled, or I'll actually open the link to the revision(s) in a new tab, then patrol all related revisions via the page history, beginning from the beginning. There are also some user scripts, which can also be gadgets if you prefer, related to patrolling, which you may find useful. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try finding the user scripts through the link you gave. --SolidBlock (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. :) Dmehus (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I found no one that can effectively mark page as patrolled within the user script list. The script 'RC Patrol' can view recent changes effectively, but it cannot mark page as patrolled at present. --SolidBlock (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ManageWiki/Settings broken?
I was setting up my wiki, and after making several changes, I found out that somehow I can no longer save changes made on mh:nanon334:Special:ManageWiki/settings.

I can still submit the changes, but nothing happens.

I need to fix my logo URL to, but I have no idea what to do because I can't manage my wiki through ManageWiki/settings.

Can anyone help me solve this issue? Thanks. なのん団名誉顧問 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * なのん団名誉顧問 Note that due to the ManageWiki UI's design, changes made will not show within the ManageWiki UI until you exit the UI and go back in to the given page. Also, check to see in your Special:Log/managewiki if the changes were saved. If they were, then there should be no issue here. Additionally, note that logo changes can take up to 24 hours sometimes to be fully changed as it is either a MediaWiki or a Varnish cache issue. You should also try to use  +   to force refresh your page. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dmehus I've already checked RecentChanges and Log/managewiki only to find that no logs were made.--なのん団名誉顧問 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me try testing for you then. Dmehus (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope it will work fine.--なのん団名誉顧問 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * なのん団名誉顧問 Okay, I tried to make the change, and nothing happened. So I wonder if this is a ManageWiki cache issue? I will ping Reception123 to this request and see if there's a maintenance script they can run on your wiki. Also, I noticed you had  preceding the filename. Note that won't work, as you need to use the   URL you posted above, ensuring your files are 135x135px. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dmehus Thanks for trying. Indeed I found out it didn't when I logged out (I suppose it's because the wiki is private), which is why I need to fix it to the correct URL above.--なのん団名誉顧問 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * なのん団名誉顧問 I've asked in . Paladox and Universal Omega responded, the latter of whom has seen the issue. It is an apparent upstream bug with regard to the data input validation used in the  field. He will be temporarily enabling the SocialProfile extension, making the change needed, then disabling the SocialProfile extension and any extension-added user rights/groups. Dmehus (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dmehus Thanks for the investigation. I have confirmed that it is now fixed.--なのん団名誉顧問 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Japanese translation
Soon, we'll finish translating Meta content into Japanese! All that's left is Template:Mental Health Resources. I would like to thank the User:開拓者 and everyone else who translated many pages before I started the translation process. Thank you 01:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Waki285 Wow, ✅! I know you've certainly been active as a translator, but didn't realize you were this close to finishing the Japanese translations. Though we're not ready to prepare any new pages for translation, please do let me know if you're interested in doing Japanese translations on Miraheze Commons or Miraheze Template Wiki. Dmehus (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work! claps 04:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's great work! I think a round of applause is in order. applauds Sabelöga (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about wiki creators creating this own wikis
Hello. I am wondering if it is usually okay or encouraged that wiki creators create and approve their own wikis. In my personal opinion, I do not think it is really a problem even though I do think it would be encouraged that wiki creators have another one peer review their request for impartiality reasons. However, I do have to say that when I was looking at wiki creator activity, I came across this request and find it a bit unjust that a wiki creator can request/have their wiki created with such a short description that I imagine would in other circumstances mean that a wiki would get rejected. DeeM28 (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I saw this request specifically and thought about it. Personally, if I request a wiki, I will have it approved by another wiki creator (because my COI rules) - excluding one request, I created wiki myself. Technically, wiki creators should be able to approve their own wiki requests, because they should know all rules, etc.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 Two things. First, yes, it's perfectly acceptable for wiki creators to approve or create, as applicable, their own wikis; however, they should define a clear purpose and scope for their wiki. I'm not sure whether I noticed that specific request by that wiki creator you mentioned, but I have noticed several approved wikis from that wiki creator with descriptions that aren't meeting our requirements, and have planned to engage with the wiki creator to remind them to ensure each wiki they approve had a clear purpose and scope per Content Policy. It's also worth noting that wiki creators can create their wiki directly, but convention or custom is such that it's recommended they still use Special:RequestWiki in most cases. Second, with regard to wiki creator activity, note that for the purposes of inactivity, the policy is three months of global community activity on all platforms, so one cannot merely assess wiki creating activity or even other activity on Meta, but rather, they must examine all activity (i.e., on all attached wikis, on GitHub, on Phabricator, and on Discord and IRC&mdash;some flexibility is allowed on the latter two platforms as not all channels are publicly logged). Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for both of your answers, they were helpful. It would be useful to engage with that wiki creator as I think wiki creators do need to follow the same standards whether it is their own wiki or it is not. If I was a wiki creator I would do the same as MrJaroslavik and prefer that someone else created it in order for the process to be completely impartial. I have looked once again at Msnhinet8's wiki creations and something else that does concern me as well is that they are mostly creating their own wikis and not other requested wikis. Will this be part of your message to him? DeeM28 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 I probably won't include this message, no, but I will likely or may link to this discussion and mentioned that others have shared similar concerns. In terms of whether a wiki creator approves their own wiki, I'm reluctant to endorse the idea that they should not approve their own wikis as I agree with MrJaroslavik above that they should understand Content Policy fully and define a clear purpose and scope for their wikis; rather, they should be certain that their description meets, or ideally exceeds, what we expect in terms of a defined purpose and scope for the wiki. I'll try and get to my note for the wiki creator in the next several days, though. Dmehus (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken, in the past 6 months every approved request was for Msnhinet8's own wikis. I understand if some wiki creators want to approve their own requests; I do not think that is a terrible thing to do, but this wiki creator seems to only be approving his/her/their own requests and I do not think that is an adequate use of the tools and I also do not think that that was mentioned in the original wiki request. DeeM28 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 Yes, I'm not sure if it was every request or not, but I have definitely noticed that most of their approved wikis have been apparently their own wikis. That's not great, to be perfectly honest, and something that I will address. The downside to them giving up the bit, though, is they are not fluent in English, and Google Translate is, well, not great, to say the least, with the Asian languages (especially Mandarin or Cantonese). Their wikis haven't been problematic from a Content Policy perspective, but my concern is just that if the bit were removed (either by them resigning or because it was later removed by a Steward), is that they may have difficulty articulating the purpose for their wiki. We really could use a wiki creator who speaks both fluent Mandarin, Cantonese, and English, in my opinion. Dmehus (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and I am glad that you will address it. I fully agree that wiki creators who understand and can speak more languages are very much necessary. There is a little irony with the last part however as they are not currently articulating the purposes clearly in either language 😉. DeeM28 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I do see the irony there. Dmehus (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

ログインできません
タイトルにも書かせていただきましたが、ログインできません. その為ipになっていますが、自称噓つきです. 自称嘘つき 06:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Above question translates using Google Translate as, "I wrote it in the title, but I can't log in. Therefore, it is an ip, but it has a self-proclaimed lie." Title translates as, "I can't login." 自称嘘つき, what's the error message you are receiving? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please try clearing your cookies for ?  15:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I didn't recommend that, as I didn't want to potentially confuse the issue, if that's not the reason for why they can't login. Additionally, if it is the reason, and it's related to session hijacking, there's a few additional steps required. So, let's just wait a bit for the requestor to comment with the specific error message received. Dmehus (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will post my English translation.
 * title:I can't log in
 * description:As I wrote in the title, I can't log in. Therefore, although it is posted with an IP address, the real account name is '自称嘘つき'.
 * If its helpful then im happy.
 * -- 08:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I inserted a line break for clarity-- 08:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried it again and was able to log in. Excuse me. --自称嘘つき (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 自称嘘つき Oh, this is ✅ news. I'm glad to hear it. Thanks for updating us! Dmehus (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Weird request...
The wiki I made here, https://thesciencearchives.miraheze.org/wiki/, was based on a FANDOM/Wikia site I made that was essentially the same thing but had many pages protected so that it would be more reliable. The site was eventually pulled down due to breaking FANDOM's TOU. So would it be okay if I do the same thing to my wiki and protect all main namespace pages? (I'm not very good at HTML). Thanks. Joey717 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Joey717 Yes, you can protect all pages in your wiki's  namespace individually or protect your   namespace at a given restriction level, but it's not obvious what you're trying to avoid or why the Fandom version of the wiki was dropped for breaking Fandom's Terms of Service, so I can't really comment on whether it's good or not. Can you clarify that a bit? But yes, as to your first question, you can definitely protect pages or namespace at a certain level. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I want it to be more reliable than Wikipedia. Joey717 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Joey717 Oh, that makes sense then, and yes, you absolutely can go into Special:ManageWiki/namespaces on your wiki and protect your wiki's  namespace at whatever protection/restriction level you wish. You might also look into enabling the Moderation extension in Special:ManageWiki/extensions. Dmehus (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Joey717 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad we were able to help. :) Dmehus (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox needed - help
If a steward or admin would be so kind as to help me create an infobox for my wiki - this is the page that's got the problem:

https://altuniverseuk1182.miraheze.org/wiki/Holden_Reihi

I'm trying to create a vehicle infobox like the one seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_(eighth_generation)

I can create templates, but getting infoboxes to work is a nightmare.

I'll give someone temp sysop privileges to do this if you need. Would really appreciate the help to expand this! --KingstonuHull-h1986 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, those templates on Wikipedia are a nightmare to copy because there are so many other templates included which include other templates and so on. Besides that there are Lua procedures which are hard to look through. Therefore I recommend to design a much simpler template which could have the same parameters as in the Wikipedia and look nearly the same, LilyLilyu - smile.svg (Lilypond Wiki · talk to me · little garden · my wiki of everything) 05:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
I need help with editing infoboxes, what's the default for infoboxes and if there is none how can I set it up Caker18 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Caker18 Thank you for your question. Please see this frequently asked question and this help page for this commonly asked question. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Resetting a wiki
I created a wiki today (gwangsi.miraheze.org), and I tried to import a template from Wikipedia. It imported Module:TNT, and now it keeps throwing errors on template pages. As I didn't add very much info, I would like to know if I would be able to reset / format my wiki due to the mess I've accidentally created. C.antczak (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * C.antczak You can request to have your wiki deleted, your database dropped, and your wiki recreated on Phabricator; however, I don't think that would be needed for a bad import of Module:TNT. You could just delete Module:TNT, or restore to an earlier, correct revision of Module:TNT. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

不正利用フィルターのエクスポートについて
不正利用フィルターを他wikiからエクスポートする方法が分かりません--自称嘘つき (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If the machine translation is accurate, it appears that you want to "export" abuse filters from other wikis. The only way that can be done is by copying the content from wiki X and pasting it on wiki Y. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to enable Extension Labeled Section Transclusion
Hello, i propose enabling of Labeled Section Transclusion extension on Meta-Wiki. I doing some template work and want to create for example page "Meta:Templates", then insert sections (like "Social media userboxes" or "Inline talk templates") using section transclusion into documentation subpages of templates. Also i propose enabling this extension on LoginWiki, because when i will be done here, i plan to import some templates (like 90% are userboxes) and i dont see problem in creating of one page in project/main namespace. So what are your thoughts? Thank you,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that per what I said about a month ago, since this extension doesn't ultimately change the workflow of this wiki and just provides a small extra feature it should be fine to enable without a full formal discussion, as I can't see why it would be opposed. For the record, in the future it would be preferable to use Administrators' noticeboard for Meta-specific extension requests. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally (while i am not crat or steward) refuse to enable anything on this central wiki without any discussion. Also this page has more watchers and proposal is including proposal for LoginWiki. Sorry, I will not change my opinions/procedures for proposals.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, stewards' noticeboard would be where we'd handle requests for configuration changes to Loginwiki; any request or discussion wouldn't actually occur on Loginwiki itself. Community noticeboard is mainly for technical questions about users' wikis, or for pan-Miraheze proposals. I agree with Reception123 above that Administrators' noticeboard would be the best venue to request this, as Stewards monitor that noticeboard as well. I personally also think this extension is quite non-controversial, and you've articulated a good use for enabling it on Meta. Enabling on Loginwiki also makes sense for the same reasons. Dmehus (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection, if this can help you (and maybe others) for doing templates, why not? HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 07:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not really get what the extension does. Could you please describe that in a few sentences for me and anybody else who may be confused? Thank you. 07:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. You have PageA that have 9 sections and is updated + you have PageZ where you want transclude 1 of 9 sections from PageA. You will do it by adding to PageZ. It is not only about templates, can be used for many things, but i want it for templates. Right now we have/i created Template:Template list with subpage for every category of templates. When this enabled i can create one central template/page, then include only one section in template docs. It is my use case.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or there is help page on Wikipedia .--MrJaroslavik (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not if someone finds this useful in that case? :) 08:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I first thought about whether opening a new thread for my observation was necessary but decided that it would make sense to add it here. My observation is more focused on the topic of the procedure more than on the merits of enabling this desired extension. I think this is an issue of direct democracy versus representative democracy. Do we want users and the community to have to have a discussion and a vote for every single minor modification to this wiki's settings, or do we want to trust the elected people (Meta administrators and bureaucrats) to make these decisions for the community where the change is minor and uncontroversial? My personal view is that for extensions and settings that do not make any major modifications to the functioning of the wiki and add a very minor feature to the wiki, there is not necessarily a need for a complete discussion and a vote. Instead, a short period of time could be left for any (unlikely) opposes. However, it is clear that there are differing views on the matter, some seem to believe that most extensions and settings could be enabled without a serious discussion while others are apparently of the opinion that no extensions or settings, no matter how minor can be enabled without discussion. As I have made clear, I do not agree with any of these two radical views and wish to take a more balanced approach. Owing to this fact, I believe that the only way forward is to hold a local Meta Request for Comment and have the community decide on this matter and create a policy to regulate which type of extensions and settings can be enabled without a major discussion, and which types require a discussion. The lack of policy and disagreement between administrators themselves (as shown in the Report extension discussion) is clearly disadvantageous and confusing, and the only way to repair that is by having a clear rule. DeeM28 (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is no opposition to my idea to create a policy, I will create a draft to propose to the Meta community. Even if there is opposition to the creation of a policy itself, that can probably be expressed on the proposal itself. DeeM28 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's one more aspect - I don't trust every steward. Also Stewards will work with communities.. in steward policy. Reason why i created this thread is because i wanted give space for possible oppose inputs from community and not request enabling because i want it. And no, this is not vote.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now created a draft proposal which I will soon propose as a local Meta RfC. DeeM28 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 Meta Wiki is a special wiki with regard to extensions and configuration changes, as it controls certain global configurations. So, Meta bureaucrats do not have ManageWiki permissions. While they close local RfCs and permissions requests requiring a community election, so your draft proposal would need further revision over the next several weeks. Additionally, it may actually be better as a community-endorsed guideline, by way of RfC, to account for unforeseen circumstances requiring an extension or configuration be made by Stewards. Your point above about direct democracy and representative democracy was entirely on point, so really, all this needs is codifying what were previously non-codified conventions and customs. Dmehus (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding bureaucrats not being able to change ManageWiki directly via Meta, could Proposal 1 not exist and instead say that Stewards must have a bureaucrat's permission before changing a extension or setting? Even though Stewards would be doing these changes, they would only be doing them if bureaucrats have requested it (or if bureaucrats have evaluated consensus). And of course, if you disagree with my proposed proposal 1, you are free to vote for Proposal 2 instead, but I think the revised Proposal 1 can exist. DeeM28 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 I've made some changes to your your proposal, so please review those changes, and let me know any feedback at User talk:DeeM28/Meta extensions and settings policy. What I don't know how to revise, following these changes to the draft proposal, is Proposal 3. With regard to your question, though, yes, we can definitely do that for Proposal 1, and to be clear, Stewards have always requested a Meta bureaucrat review and assent to the change, if it's a Meta-specific configuration change. What we really need to codify, I think, is that this request and bureaucrat assent be made on-wiki and also to clarifying what requires a discussion and what does not. What do you think? Dmehus (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps my ideas were confusing. My main idea was: if the change is trivial, 24 hours should be left for any possible opposes, if the change is not trivial the date would've been 5 days (as specified in my original Proposal 3). I will also edit Proposal 1 to clarify that Stewards must have a bureaucrat's assent. DeeM28 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also confused regarding your modifications to "the location for Stewards to provide notification". Does that imply that if there is no discussion needed for a trivial extension, bureaucrats would not be involved in assenting? If that is so, then that is not what my original proposal intended, and you should create a separate one for that. DeeM28 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 No, that's not what I meant by that. What I meant is if the configuration change or extension has potential global impacts, the steward should provide the same 24 hour notification to the community that a Meta bureaucrat would except in a different venue, specified by Proposal 1.2. Feel free to modify/clarify that as well. Dmehus (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 Yeah...perhaps it was just a bit confusing. I think my modified Proposal 1 has the same aims of your original Proposal 1; essentially, unless it has global impacts, bureaucrats on Meta should (a) determine whether a community discussion is required, for which those exceptions could be modified to that proposal and (b) close said community discussion. If the configuration change is Meta only, yes, I would have no issues with Stewards requesting that at Administrators' noticeboard. Feel free to further modify my suggested modifications to Proposal 1 (and other proposals) that incorporates this feedback. Dmehus (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps I am confused by the wording. Do you mean in Proposal 1 that while Stewards are responsible for enabling the extensions and settings, bureaucrats are the ones responsible for actually approving and giving assent to these changes? So Stewards would not directly be able to make modifications without bureaucrats agreeing? If so that is the original intention for my Proposal 1, if not, then it would be a different proposal that can be voted on. DeeM28 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1.2 also seems to say that, that Stewards are the ones who provide notification which is implying that they are the ones making the decision, where my original intention was that Stewards just effect the changes as requested by bureaucrats. DeeM28 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Proposal 1.2 is meant just to give the community a choice in notification/discussion venue for configuration changes/extension requests with global impacts. Proposal 1.1 is the procedures Meta bureaucrats would follow in notification/discussion venue. Dmehus (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, too, that any user (including an administrator) can request an extension or configuration change, so it's not Meta bureaucrats that would be requesting Stewards effect the change. It would just be the Meta bureaucrat that gives their on-wiki assessment that the change (a) is within their scope, (b) does not require a community discussion, and (c) has passed the applicable/relevant notification and discussion period, so a Steward can enable/effect the change. Dmehus (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28 Yeah, essentially, I just clarified your Proposal 1, though we probably should have a Proposal 2 that could be voted on as well, and Proposal 3 will need to be clarified to incorporate the updates. We may also want to articulate some guidelines, either in Proposal 3 or a new proposal, that provide additional guidance to Meta bureaucrats in determining whether the 24 hour or 5 day holding period applies. Dmehus (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unfortunately still confused by the fact that Proposal 1.2 and Proposal 1 I understand are saying that there are some situations where bureaucrats are not involved at all and it is Stewards who do everything. Maybe you could edit and clarify those for me? I understand them as saying "In circumstances where there doesn't have to be a discussion, bureaucrats are not involved and Stewards are the ones who advertise the change". DeeM28 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1.1 and Proposal 1.2 are just supplementary proposals, with the former applicable to Meta bureaucrats and the latter applicable to stewards, that specify the respective notification/discussion venues that the respective groups are to use. Meta bureaucrats would use the venue specified in Proposal 1.1 for Meta only configuration/extension changes and Stewards would use the venue specified in Proposal 1.2 for Meta ManageWiki configuration/extension changes having global or pan-Miraheze impacts. I'll see if I can tweak that some, though. Dmehus (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it will be useful if you clarify it more, but now I think I understand: Proposal 1.2 only applies to global configuration changes that apply to the whole of Miraheze and are not under the control of the Meta community only and bureaucrats. Maybe that can be made a bit more clear in Proposal 1 as well, that Stewards only have jurisdiction for that. DeeM28 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Essentially, yeah. This is why it's always been far from clear, due to the shared jurisdiction and because Meta isn't exclusively a local wiki. For example, in normal circumstances, even on Miraheze Template Wiki or Miraheze Commons, each wiki has local bureaucrats, so Stewards simply would not act there, unless it's in the course of performing counter-vandalism activities for which local administration has not acted in a reasonable period of time or it's to perform an action which the local bureaucrats cannot effect (i.e., removing a local  following consensus to do so). It would be simpler, certainly, if, say, Meta Wiki was like those wikis and all global configuration was done, say, on Loginwiki, but Loginwiki is not as actively monitored by the global community, so it wouldn't be as transparent. Dmehus (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to unattach my account on wikis?
I'm wanting to see if I could remove some wikis from my global account info. --DeciduousWater534 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * DeciduousWater534 While we cannot simply detach accounts from a global user account, they could be detached and merged into & reattached to another user account which you've either (a) already created or would (b) later create, I would think. Both global accounts would need to be confirmed to be owned and operated by you. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting, so how exactly does that work? I'm thinking that the merged account will only display the wikis that both accounts attached themselves to? --DeciduousWater534 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's important to remember there is both a global account containing the attached, or unattached, local wiki user accounts. Global accounts cannot be merged, as far as I'm aware, so it's a bit of a time-consuming process we wouldn't likely want to make a habit of, but I believe it would involve unattaching selected local user accounts then merging them into the unattached local wiki user accounts of one's other username. When this process had concluded, the merged local wiki user accounts would then be reattached to the user's alternate global account. Hope that makes sense. Dmehus (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We'd need a very good reason to be detaching, renaming and reattaching accounts. It's possible but untested and I'd be inclined to decline doing it. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  10:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. So how do I merge the accounts, or where do I go to request a merge? And am I able to pick out which wikis I want to merge the accounts with? --DeciduousWater534 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can merge 2 global accounts but we're not going to detach accounts from existing wikis without a very good reason. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  10:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)