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. --TFFfan (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)

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) ］ |

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) ］ |

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. --TFFfan (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) ］ |

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) ］ |

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
02:41, 9 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.

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.

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)

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. --TFFfan (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)

Comments
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)

Mass deleting pages
On Crappy Games Wiki, there's a lot of pages with a "@comment" in the title, which are FANDOM leftovers. Is there anyway I can delete them all at once? --DeciduousWater534 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want all the "@comment" pages deleted? If so, system administrators can set up a deletion page script to mass delete those pages. All you need to do is open a Phabricator ticket (under Maniphest --> Create task ---> MediaWiki project ---> Maintenance workboard). If you haven't registered a Phabricator account yet, just go to Miraheze Phabricator, click on the MediaWiki login, and then it should take you back to this Meta wiki to authorize your Phabricator account access using OAuth. Let me know if any issues. If you have difficulty creating the task, I can do it for you and tag your Phabricator account, once you confirm (by way of a reply here) that you want all pages prefixed by "@comment" in all namespaces deleted. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I created a task. I was hoping that I could delete them all myself, but I was only able to delete recently edited ones. Thanks. --DeciduousWater534 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If they're not comingled with other pages in a single namespace, you could use Special:Nuke pretty easily, but otherwise, your only alternative would be to manually tag every page with a special purpose category, and then nuke all pages in that category. Using the SQL LIKE command is something I haven't fully understood, so the Phabricator task is your best bet in this case. Dmehus (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hiding the section edit links for anonymous users
I would like to hide the section edit links for anonymous users, but I'm not quite sure how to do that. According to this page it can be done by configuring a wiki's localsettings.php file, but upon further investigation that's only accessible from a wiki's server files, not the wiki itself. Also, while I want logged-in users to have the option of having section editing be visible, is there an option in preferences for users to turn it off for themselves if they choose to? CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, you can just protect pages to "Allow only logged in users". It should work too.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please let us know if protecting the pages, or specific namespaces, to logged-in users will serve your needs. If not, and you want anonymous users to edit pages, but not sections of pages, it may be possible to file a Phabricator task, but without knowing which setting in localsettings.php needs to be changed, it's not clear if this can be changed on a wiki-specific basis (possible) or if there's only one setting that would be changed on all wikis (probably not possible). Dmehus (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to leave the option open for anonymous users to edit certain pages, so I don't want to disable anonymous editing entirely, just make the reading experience a bit more streamlined. The MediaWiki page I read mentioned that adding $wgDefaultUserOptions ['editsection'] = false; to the local settings file would hide the section edit links. Can I request that this change be made on Phabricator? Also, is there any option in preferences for users to re-enable the section edit links if they wish to? Thanks, CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check with a sysadmin to see if this can be disabled on a wiki-specific basis. To your second question, it may be possible for users to hide the "edit section" links via their local common.js or common.css file, but this is just a guess on possibilities. I haven't investigated if this is possible. For now, you could just use  magic word, but this will hide it from all users. Not ideal for what you're wanting, but may be an acceptable workaround? Dmehus (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After further research I found that modification of section links via php files hasn't been an option since MediaWiki 1.23, which replaced it with CSS file edits, which I just did to the site-wide CSS file on my wiki. Since this disables it for all users however, is there a way for users to override this if they wish to have section edit links by editing their own user CSS file? CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but maybe? I really don't know here, but will try to find out something for you in the next day or two. Ping me if you find out anything through your own research. Why do you want to disable it site-wide, rather than just use one of the magic words on specific pages? Dmehus (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I find that the edit links are especially noticeable with the MediaWiki theme that I'm using, so I only want them to show if the user is an editor that wants to use them, since otherwise most people aren't interested in editing and just want to look up information. I saw that there is the alternative in user preferences of enabling right-click to edit sections, but after a quick lookup of CSS formatting, I figured out that I can counteract the .mw-editsection { display:none!important; } in the main CSS file with .mw-editsection { display:contents!important; } in my (and any user who chooses to) CSS file. A bit clunky, but it works! Thanks for the responses! CoolieCoolster (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably, I think that it is possible to display it only to login users by using Common.css and Group-user.css together. After hiding the section edit link to all users, can't it be displayed again only to login users? --そらたこ (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's only me for now so I'll just leave it like it is for now. Since there's the "right click to edit section" option in preferences, if any of my wiki's users want to I'll suggest either that or the other option to them. Thanks, CoolieCoolster (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about Private Wiki User Access Levels
Hallo. Complete new Miraheze user here. Yesterday I created my first (private) wiki and today confirmed that simply having a Miraheze username did not allow the owner of that username to access a subsidiary page. I then created a new username and added that username to the group "member", expecting that once done the owner of that username would then be able to read the subsidiary page. This was true, but I then discovered that he could also edit that page. Could a more experienced user please advise what I have done wrong ? My ultimate aim is to have (at least) three levels of access : (1) none (usernames that are not a member of any group); (2) read-only (usernames that are members of "member"); and (3) read-write (usenames that are members of more powerful groups than "member").
 * Yeah, the  group is for private wikis, so that you can manually add members to that group to have read and/or edit access to your private wiki. It sounds like you want it to be a member only wiki, so you have two options, discussed in turn below:
 * Modify your  group permissions to remove the   and any related permissions; or,
 * Protect the pages, or namespaces, to a higher level group (i.e.,  or  ).
 * Both of these are done in Special:ManageWiki on your wiki. Also, you may notice anyone that visits your wiki will be attached to your wiki, but unless they're in the  group, they won't be able to read your wiki, so there's no need to block non-members (some users have wondered about this in the past).
 * Separately, I have also moved your topic to the bottom of this page, added a relevant section header (feel free to change, if you wish), and removed the  tags around your signature, adding unsigned in lieu of a signature, as this page doesn't use Flow/StructuredDiscussions, so requires a signature. Dmehus (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dmehus. No idea why it appeared at the top of the page if it was not meant to, but thank you for moving it to the correct place.  As regards the signature, I typed the required four tildes, so unclear why that did not appear as intended.  If you can tell me the format of a signature, I will endeavour to replace unsigned  with whatever my correct signature should be.
 * Adding a further four tildes here in the hopes that this time they will have the desired effect.
 * Hmmm, clearly they didn't. But a further problem — trying to access Special:ManageWiki, I am asked for the database name :  how do I find that out ?  And what should I do to add my signature when four tildes do not work ?
 * Worked around that (the URL behaves differently depending on the current URL) but having checked the access rights for "member", there is only one : "Read".  "Edit" (and all variants thereof) appear only under "Unassigned rights".  So still perplexed.
 * Regarding the signature, it's because you are wrapping the  in the nowiki tags. Nevertheless, it wasn't a problem, as I fixed it for you again. Regarding adding a topic, you probably used the "edit" tab instead of "add topic," which is fine, except you will have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to add it. Regarding your problem, sorry, I should've linked to the ManageWiki page on your wiki, Special:ManageWiki (like that). From there, you just select the   group and modify its permissions. Note that   is for the permissions of all users, including non-registered/IP users. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, many thanks Dmehus. Tomorrow I will look further at Special:ManageWiki, but the group "member" really has only read access, so I remain perplexed.  As to "wrapping the   in the nowiki tags", I would have no idea how to do this !  All I do is type four tildes on a new line and they come out as ... four tildes.  Very odd indeed.
 * Worked around that (the URL behaves differently depending on the current URL) but having checked the access rights for "member", there is only one : "Read".  "Edit" (and all variants thereof) appear only under "Unassigned rights".  So still perplexed.
 * Regarding the signature, it's because you are wrapping the  in the nowiki tags. Nevertheless, it wasn't a problem, as I fixed it for you again. Regarding adding a topic, you probably used the "edit" tab instead of "add topic," which is fine, except you will have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to add it. Regarding your problem, sorry, I should've linked to the ManageWiki page on your wiki, Special:ManageWiki (like that). From there, you just select the   group and modify its permissions. Note that   is for the permissions of all users, including non-registered/IP users. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, many thanks Dmehus. Tomorrow I will look further at Special:ManageWiki, but the group "member" really has only read access, so I remain perplexed.  As to "wrapping the   in the nowiki tags", I would have no idea how to do this !  All I do is type four tildes on a new line and they come out as ... four tildes.  Very odd indeed.

Local CU, OS and ArbC
I think that having CU and OS tools restricted to stewards is not good for users who create a wiki here just because they cannot afford a server, which is around probably 20000 USD. These tools should also be allowed on wikis which demonstrate activity and contributions. Also, some wikis may be based on an organization, not a private entity. They should have the ability to resolve some of legal issues before Miraheze is influenced. I think these should only be allowed on a wiki with more than 50 contributors and at least 20 articles. They are granted by the ArbCom, and the ArbCom is granted by vote scrutineers following a community discussion specified by any wiki. They must meet some requirements set by individual wikis and sign the Privacy document, and have OAuth enabled. I am an OAuth application developer. ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that wikis should be self-governing and adhere to the global policy, and that is why I proposed this. ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) at 10:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Stewards would grant local CU+OS, that policy will be made clear soon, following a community vote. No ArbCom is needed. We will make the criteria clear and yes all must sign an NDA. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  09:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why you say no ArbC is needed? Edit: Maybe we can set up a higher limit of 200 contributors and 100 articles to qualify for ArbC.ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I don't see much for it to do. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is really no need for an ArbCom right now, the community is simply not large enough, and there are barely enough volunteers as it is. And also, a server is nowhere near 20000 dollars, maybe that was a hyperbole? Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With some differences, we already have the Code of Conduct Commission, which serves as the ultimate community elected body for mediating Code of Conduct disputes between users and serving as an appeals body for the community- or steward-imposed sanctions. It's very similar to Arbitration Committee on English Wikipedia except that it is a truly global quasi-judicial elected community body, but it does have a lot of similarities in its approach and methods. As to local CheckUser, I still struggle to see why we would need a local CheckUser right; Oversight maybe, but would still require signing a non-disclosure agreement as it would be able to see edits or log actions suppressed by a steward. As well, it would need, included within the terms of revocation, a stipulation that if a local wiki  unsuppressed an entry suppressed by a steward or system administrator (in the course of enforcing the ToU), it can be revoked summarily by either group (as applicable), possibly accompanied by some sort of community discussion related to that user's actions. Dmehus (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the above-quoted cost of a server, that's an arguably ridiculous number. You could run a small wiki on a cloud-based VPS for about $5 USD per month, which would give you the CU and OS access you apparently need. Dmehus (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

With Miraheze, an account is created by simply accessing the wiki while logged in, so I would like to have the permissions discussed this time be managed collectively with meta.--松•Matsu (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, especially with regard to why we should not have a local CheckUser. Even with local Oversight, while I at least potentially see a use case, there are a number of logistical hurdles or obstacles over which we'd have to overcome. Local CheckUser, though, for the reason you've articulated, and the reasons expressed by others should really be avoided. I quite like the way it's currently restricted to a limited number of very trusted users, and coordinated through Meta for transparency purposes. Dmehus (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, since a CU access can have serious complications, and because of the COC commission in place, local ArbComs are not needed, though I am thinking of placing a high size limit for local arbitration committees. Local check users should be avoided if there are no policies regarding local CU usage, but per what Dmehus said, local OS can see revisions hidden by an ST or SA, which requires an NDA. After all, this is pretty hard to fully resolve. CU and Arb are not required in my wiki since my wiki is pretty small. I just need an OS access which I have requested at the steward's noticeboard. I am also thinking of local locks which can be imposed by bureaucrats preventing the user from logging in on a specific wiki. but I will start a new topic for it. ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) - 02:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we can set up some global policy that basically says that users with the right(s) of granting or using local CU and OS must enable 2FA and local OS should not restore revisions which are hidden by a SA or ST. [ ThesenatorO5-2 (talk) | 08:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ]

How to create WikiBase properties
I just created a wiki on Miraheze an successfully enabled WikiBase. Nevertheless I have a very basic issue: I can create Items, but I cannot create properties. When I point to page  the result is the error: You do not have permission to create Properties, for the following reason: You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.

As WikiBase without properties is pretty useless, then I think I am missing something very basic. I cannot find any additional documentation on WikiBase on Miraheze, so can you please help with this? Thanks --Lucamauri (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for signing your post with four tildes, and welcome to Meta. No problem with your question; no question is too basic. I suspect the issue is because to create properties in WikiBase, one needs to have the  user right granted to them (since it's not included within the   and   bits, insofar as I am aware). Have you assigned that user group to yourself? Let me know if this resolves it. Dmehus (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for helping me: I made the modification and it works as expected. May I suggest this to be added somewhere into Documentation or FAQ? I would have done myself, but I see I, as a user, cannot contribute to META. Thanks. --Lucamauri (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem...I'm glad my proposed solution worked. Regarding your above request to add something like this to the FAQ, I do see that page is protected as administrator, probably because it's a high-traffic page (as opposed to a global policy page). Nevertheless, I have diarized this request, and will ensure it is updated in the next couple of weeks. Thanks again for your follow up, and also for your signing your posts. It is so nice to welcome an experienced MediaWiki user to Meta who is already well trained in discussion page conventions (i.e., signing posts, etc.). Dmehus (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We probably should write a WikiBase specific guide. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be useful. I was talking to about our FAQ page, which I think could be improved in terms of how we've classified various questions by subject, and could probably be broken down further into various subpages of that page as it's already starting to become a bit too lengthy in terms of readability as a single page. It's on my mental 'to-do list'. Dmehus (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * you are flattering me 😁 Regarding documentation on WikiBase, I would be happy to help, if needed, as I am working quite heavily on it for personal project. --Lucamauri (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How can I import a set of Markdown pages?
Hi,

I have a number of markdown pages exported from Nuclino. Is there a way to import them all into miraheze?
 * This discussion was moved from Administrators' noticeboard where it was out of scope (diff). Dmehus (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , firstly, thank for your asking your question at Administrators' noticeboard, and welcome both to Meta and to Miraheze. Please note I have procedurally moved it to community noticeboard as this is the centralized discussion page for wiki support-related questions (amongst other things). As well, I have added an unsigned signature to your initial post, containing your username and timestamp when you made your post, as it's required for archiving discussions by the bot. Please ensure you sign your posts with the four tildes in the future.
 * Secondly, regarding your question, looking at the declined extensions section of the Extensions page on this wiki, it looks like Extension:Markdown was previously requested, but declined by Miraheze system administrators as it is not actively maintained by the upstream developer(s). This would've been ideal in terms of converting the Markdown formatting into wikitext, but alas, that is not available. In terms of the format of the Nuclino XML dumps, given that Nuclino does not use MediaWiki wiki software, I'm inclined to think a direct import would probably not be possible. One option you may want to consider is to first your Nuclino pages in Markdown with a third-party conversion utility. From there, depending on the format you convert it to, it may be possible to import that format. Other users may have some other ideas. Dmehus (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiBase custom configuration
I am looking for the way to make some custom configuration in WikiBase Repo of my wiki on Miraheze, but I am not sure how to do it or even if this is possible at all.

Specifically I am interested in customising: $wgWBRepoSettings['siteLinkGroups'] $wgWBClientSettings['specialSiteLinkGroups'] $wgWBRepoSettings['formatterUrlProperty'] and, accordingly, add some rows to the  table.

In my own installation I would set the variables into Repo's  and use   command line utility to insert the rows.

Can I do this in my MediaWiki instance on Miraheze? Or can I ask it to be done by an admin?

Thanks --Lucamauri (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if those settings are wiki-specific, but if they are, then it might be possible to create a Phabricator ticket on Miraheze Phabricator. If you don't already have an account there, use the "MediaWiki sign-up" link, and it'll automatically bring you back to Meta to authorize your Phabricator account using OAuth. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I have filed it here https://phabricator.miraheze.org/T6041 Just for the records: these are wiki-specific settings. Frankly I am surprised no user requested to modify those before, as they are of critical importance for the use of SiteLinks and data so-called direct access. I would have expected a section for it in ManageWiki. --Lucamauri (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

when will wikis about scratch be allowed to be made again?
this says that wikis about scratch WILL be allowed after 45 days, how much days are left until wikis about scratch will be allowed so I can make a wiki about one of my games on scratch. ScratchCoder (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You should be fine. The discussion closed nearly two months ago. Tali64³ (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the technical restriction in force later. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  20:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Requests Interwiki administrators to change Interwiki
Wiki Url [//nmfwiki.miraheze.org]

We need some: Thanks. 开炸弹车 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) (Another Minecraft fun wiki)
 * 2) (Chinese MinecraftWiki)
 * 3) (A Chinese Wiki)
 * 4) (the url of the uid of Forum)
 * 5) (the url of the thread of Forum)
 * 6) (the url of the pid of Forum)
 * I haven't yet checked all of those websites yet (the Chinese Gamepedia wiki and NetEase website should be fine), but have moved your post from Stewards' noticeboard in this thread to community noticeboard where it is now in scope. Replies will be made here. Though I have an outstanding a request for global interwiki administrator that can be closed any time by a steward, it hasn't yet closed. So, I'm going to ping to this thread to assess your requests as well, as I do not know when it will be closed. Do you have a preference for the prefixes that will be used and whether the forward flag should be enabled, or should these be left to the interwiki administrator's discretion? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.I forgot that.em…this:
 * bbsw
 * mcwiki
 * moe
 * uid
 * tid
 * pid
 * --开炸弹车 (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying that. That's helpful. Either or I should be along shortly to assess your request (depending on my outstanding request's closure). Dmehus (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ If theres anything wrong, at me 14:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. --开炸弹车 (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Usage of the "commentadmin" right by Global sysops
While technically, since one of the duties of Global sysops is countervandalism they should be given this right on wikis where the Comments extension is enabled, it hasn't been clearly decided. It would be absurd to create an RfC just for that, so I propose a discussion here. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Per my reasoning above, a lot of vandalism is committed using the Comments extension and this would allow us to quickly remove it. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  per  as nom. I wouldn't say it would be absurd, though, to do an RfC; however, I completely agree that a community discussion, lasting roughly for at least seven (7) calendar days, should be all that is required. We might possibly want to coordinate together on a possible future RfC that outlines when an RfC versus a community discussion should be used. DM me on Discord, and I can share some ideas I have on that. Dmehus (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is a policy discussion and should be left open for 7 days. Agree that it is better to have a rule than a guess whether an RfC is called for.   01:15 18-Aug-2020
 * 1)  Because vandalism on the comments is common, having "commentadmin" rights for the global sysop will help things.  CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 18:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Cocopuff2018  03:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) .  I haven't used the Comments extension but agree in principle that those entrusted to fight vandalism should have access to everywhere that vandalism could occur.  Over, say, a new cadre created solely to police this one extension!   01:08 18-Aug-2020
 * 4)  --GondorChicken (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) per Reception Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 20:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)