Community noticeboard

Discussion: Central notice changes
This is for the sake of having an open discussion on the changes proposed in this RfC, though I won't really touch much on the last proposal that was added by another person (of course, you're welcome to talk about that as well nonetheless). Hopefully this comment will at least make it clear what the proposals I brought up are intended to mean. Also, please ask nicely if you would like clarity on anything at all.

The first one to discuss is the following:

Central notices with the purpose of soliciting participation from wiki communities for an event or a discussion should last while that event or discussion is open for people to participate. As in, the central notice would only be removed after the event or discussion has closed.

Let's start by saying that this is not changing what a central notice is made for. It's not saying that every discussion gets a central notice, what it's saying applies in the instance when the people who make central notices decide that a discussion will get a central notice, which is still at their judgement. This talk page comment might show some insight on what such judgement it is, which again they would still retain. What changes is specifically the duration of such particular central notices, in that it would be in relation to the discussion that it would be notifying of.

The discussions being referred to can be gleaned from Special:CentralNotice (click "Show archived campaigns" to see the older ones). It is what is meant to gather people to provide their input and feedback, and this description fits, for example, Requests for Comment or Requests for Stewardship. And if they have yet to be closed by the closer, then the closer presumably decided that it needs more time to gather more comments before a conclusion can be drawn. If so, the methods used to notify of the discussion's existence should get continued use to gather more discussion from people.

Another proposal to discuss is the following:

A campaign type can be set for central notice campaigns, allowing users to opt out of specific campaign types in their preferences, specifically in the "Banners" section. Here is a proposal for what campaign types Miraheze should use:
 * Fundraising
 * Surveys
 * Maintenance
 * Requests for Comment
 * Requests for Stewardship
 * Requests for Community Director

To make it clear how to use preferences to opt-out of campaign types, some text instructing people how to do so should be added to central notices.

In technical terms, campaign types are configured with $wgCentralNoticeCampaignTypes in LocalSettings.php.

This can presumably work with ManageWiki to apply for a whole wiki. To sysadmins, this would presumably be done by using a custom variable to set $wgDefaultUserOptions['centralnotice-display-campaign-type-whatever'] = 0.

Now, in regards to how to decide on the campaign types to be used, I'd say that having the communities' consensus is still relevant, in the case of disputes over what should be grouped together or partitioned. And the RfC does show a dispute over whether Requests for Global Sysop should be included, excluded, or grouped with another type. So it would at least be useful to have some sort of discussion with wiki communities to figure out what's best.

In response to other comments in the RfC: Including Requests for Global Sysop in the list of campaign types does not mean that every single one of that request gets a central notice, it is meant to mean that a RfGS would be allowed to get a central notice, which would still have the judgement of the people who make central notices to actually get one. And people should be able to decide for themselves if they want to opt out of seeing certain central notices, and I figure that if someone desires a tool to stop seeing a certain kind of notification, they likely aren't interested in what's being notified about in the first place. Finally, it was concluded in this RfC that there is consensus for community-oriented posts to be posted on Miraheze's social media accounts, therefore a community-elected role would be appropriate.

Feel free to say your thoughts on any of these topics. K599 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And will there be a way to disable CNotice for some, and leave only fundraising? YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 15:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @YellowFrogger As said in the explanation of how campaign types work, people should be able to go into their preferences and opt-out of the types that they don't want to see. K599 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But there has to be an option to hide it across the whole wiki (not just in preferences), but yes, all visitors to a particular wiki would be better. Nobody is obligated to see CNotice either, so it had to have that. Showing only CNotice for fundraising, which is important for Miraheze to maintain the wikis maintenance, the others don't matter (or only matter in Meta). YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 19:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @YellowFrogger I mentioned above that there's presumably a way to make campaign types work with ManageWiki, though I suppose a sysadmin should comment on the method I talked about. K599 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the list of campaign types proposed in my initial comment is based on past central notices as seen on Special:CentralNotice. Of course, feel free to discuss any desired changes to the list. K599 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For some added context, the banner preferences can be seen in Special:Preferences, where it's currently the extension's defaults. These options have been unused probably due to being unrelated to Miraheze. K599 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This talk page discussion has a review of the proposed list of campaign types. In response:
 * Okay, but I would prefer that "Community Notices" have a page that explains what would fall under this label. Then this page would be linked, if possible, from the related user preference and, if implemented, the related ManageWiki setting proposed in the community wishlist proposal. K599 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be useful to consider above suggestions like the instructions thing as well. K599 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Finding a conclusion on campaign types
It would be good to at least have some course of action that outlines whether or not this wikifarm will make use of campaign types, and what those campaign types will be. K599 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a talk page discussion that reviewed a list of campaign types, but it seems that no sort of action has been concretely decided on.
 * Reiterating what's been explained before, campaign types refers to Special:Preferences, a user preference that is used to choose what types of central notices to have displayed for your own account.
 * Currently, as can be seen by checking your preferences, the configured campaign types don't particularly reflect how Miraheze uses central notices (see Special:CentralNotice). Hence the suggestion above for a more appropriate list of campaign types. The description for the preference also makes reference to Wikimedia rather than this wikifarm, which probably confuses people.
 * This community wishlist proposal would also need campaign types to be configured to be useful. I'll also note the suggestion of using ManageWiki on a custom variable to set $wgDefaultUserOptions['centralnotice-display-campaign-type-whatever'] = 0.
 * If campaign types do get properly configured and used, it would be helpful to take the suggestion of including some text in central notices that instructs people how to use the user preference and ManageWiki setting, to make it clear that the banner isn't forced to appear.


 * I still want some sort of concrete conclusion on this, as I do think this would be helpful to people. K599 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd still like a resolution on this. It would be a useful feature for allowing individual control over what notices are shown to people. K599 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Asking for discussion again. This feature, as it's been explained in the above points, would help improve communication, so please have some consideration. K599 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated before, would like a discussion on appropriate options for the "Banners" user preference, as this would be a useful feature, if it were actually implemented. K599 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as this would be interesting to realize, it seems clear there is neither traffic nor interest in the topic at any wider level. --Raidarr (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the list of campaign types that I suggested above was reviewed in this talk page discussion, but further action has not occurred. What would be needed here is to get to the next step to eventually get these ideas implemented, and that's why I've summarized the details about campaign types in the bullet points above, to discuss implementation of them. K599 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a feature that would be useful for people if it were actually implemented, so I would like it to be considered. K599 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I still would be interested in some discussion for making this happen. K599 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still would like discussion on this, to make this happen sometime. K599 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional suggestion: Make a page detailing CentralNotice
I would still like a response to the above section on campaign types, and also have another suggestion to make.

If campaign types come into use, a page that details central notices, mainly the campaign types as stated before, would help people understand what these notices are for. Some other info, like what Wikimedia's pages cover, would likely also be a bit helpful. And to allow people to easily find such a page, it should at least be linked from user preferences and any ManageWiki settings related to central notices. K599 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I need help importing a dump to a wiki
What is an "interwiki prefix"? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 06:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A prefix as listed in Special:Interwiki Agent Isai  Talk to me! 19:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So... what interwiki prefix would I need to enter when importing a dump file from Bad TV Channels Wiki to Worst TV Networks Wiki? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and such could work. If not, you can ask an Interwiki administrator to add a prefix into the table for you. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I'm getting this message: "Import failed: Expected tag, got". FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the file start in ?  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 01:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Would there be a specific reason why? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 04:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, how do I lock editing on a wiki?
FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 00:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can revoke the  right from the   and   group and perhaps reassign it to only administrators or autopatrolled/autoconfirmed users, etc.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How do I disable anonymous editing on a wiki?
FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 02:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000, thank you for your question. There are several ways to prohibit IP users from editing. One way is to set  to   in Special:ManageWiki/settings. Another way is to enable the EditSubpages extension in Special:ManageWiki/extensions. Yet another way is to remove the   user right from the   group on your wiki (via Special:ManageWiki/namespaces). Finally, another way is via an abuse filter on your wiki. There are other methods as well. In any case, your wiki should, ideally, have a community discussion prior to effecting this. Dmehus (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dmehus explained it above, but I will comment on it in detail.
 * Please proceed as follows: Manage this wiki's permissions→Select existing group to edit→（everyone）→Submit→Uncheck "edit"→Save --<span style="font-family:Courier New,Consolas,serif">1108-Kiju /talk 02:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and Now that I think about it, I should probably just talk to you about the situation. I'm trying to remove the ability to edit on Bad TV Channels Wiki for everyone except bureaucrats and administrators. How do I do this? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 02:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000 What's the reason behind this? I would note you encountered a similar issue on the since deleted, so such a change should have overwhelming consensus by all contributing users to the wiki, not merely by bureaucrats as otherwise you would be creating an insular, autocratic culture that protects bureaucrats. Dmehus (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this mean revoking all editing privileges except bureaucrats and administrators? To avoid confusion in the community, it is recommended that you set up the agreement ahead of time. <span style="font-family:Courier New,Consolas,serif">1108-Kiju /talk 02:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and It's because I'm merging Bad TV Channels Wiki into Worst TV Networks Wiki. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000, ah, that sounds fine then. Have you held a discussion at  and added a local sitenotice to the wiki that links to the discussion, so contributors can participate? Dmehus (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I had to start a discussion. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 04:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for Feedback: Changing the way we categorize wikis
Hi everyone!

SRE is soliciting the opinions of community members regarding a potential change to the way we categorize wikis. Currently, wikis are categorized under one category, as seen on Special:ManageWiki. Issues arise from time to time when wikis span across multiple fields which causes the wiki requesters to feel limited and select a category which perhaps describes their wiki only partially.

One idea thrown out there was to change the way we categorize wikis by swapping out categories for tags. This way, users can select all the tags they believe fit their wiki. This would allow for fine grain categorization and searching of wikis via Special:WikiDiscover and would contribute towards helping WikiDiscover replace the Gazetteer of Wikis. These tags would be much more specific than the general one-size-fits-all approach we take with categories.

What are your thoughts on this proposed change? If you support it, tell us what types of tags you would like to see (i.e. "Lifestyle, Fitness, Computers, Technology, Phones, Movies," etc.). If you don't support this, tell us why and what you propose instead. Thank you for your participation! Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The concern I have with this isn't so much the proposed tags, but rather the plan to replace the wiki's category with the a tagging system. The reason for this is because the wiki's category is an important assessment point for Stewards and wiki creators in reviewing wiki requests against our Content Policy. For example, a wiki's purpose may not be specified, and the description could be a bit vague, but if there's a clear categorization together with one of the two, then then it may help with the approval decision. Another issue to moving towards a tag-based system is the loss of a controlled vocabulary system, in order to categorize like wikis with like wikis. Without a controlled vocabulary categorization or tagging system, this would be lost. In any case, any replacement of the existing category system must have an RfC closed by a Steward. An additional tagging system may not need an RfC, as it would be an additional feature, but again, to prevent creation of duplicate tags and ensure similar wikis are tagged similarly, any tags to be created should be controlled, requiring a GitHub pull request to be done to add them. Dmehus (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The concern I have with this isn't so much the proposed tags, but rather the plan to replace the wiki's category with a tagging system.
 * I recall when the exact same thing happened with DeviantArt submissions during their much-loathed Eclipse makeover a few years aback... (Suffice to say I've been all but absent from that platform since 2018 or so for unrelated reasons.) --Routhwick (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiki creators would still have the ability to see the selected tags and change them accordingly. Blanket categories would be converted to tags or potentially a tag would cause a "master" tag to also be applied (e.g. selecting "Computers" would also select the "Technology" tag) potentially but do note this is just an idea that we are soliciting feedback for. Additionally, as you may have noticed, I asked "what types of tags you would like to see" implying that tags would still be set via a GitHub PR. Thank you for your feedback though, this idea of maintaining both would be interesting to see. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 19:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the mechanics chosen to carry this out, the gist of this proposal is simply to enable wikis to have more than one classification. That's a good idea if we want classifications to be as useful as possible.  For example, I believe I classified the former "The Mirror" wiki as "comedy", but this classification was incomplete, as it was comedy strictly about news and current events.  But using the latter as its classification misses something even more signifcant, as it was certainly not a place you'd go to learn the news.   23:04 24-Apr-2022
 * I like very much the idea of tags. I think we can include tags as an additional way to categorise wikis. Is a great idea.
 * I like very much the idea of tags. I think we can include tags as an additional way to categorise wikis. Is a great idea.

My wiki tuscriaturas, also called The Bestiary of the golden Hippogriph is a project that spans several areas and i always feel the category restrict it. On the other side, i don't use the categories on my own wiki. I only spent a minute with that. I use categories more on wikidiscover to find wikis about fantasy and worldbuilding. My wiki encompasses mythology, philosophy, essay, literature, fantasy, roleplaying books, text about videogames, original fiction, fantasy about universes and other dimensions, etc. In other platforms there are tag based search to search for this topics. For example Disboard is a web to find discord servers by topic and their system of tags is very useful. --Avengium (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avengium, I like the idea of tags. In my opinion, tags would be very helpful on Miraheze for users to find other wikis that cater to those interests. This would also potentially increase the visibility of wikis when they can be found in more than one tag, as opposed to basically know ahead of time what category to look in, to find something (a bit of omniscience required perhaps with the current category structure). Tags would have made finding most of the great wikis I've stumbled across randomly over time, much, much faster. Increasing the ability to find and search would be very helpful, as well as promoting the different tags somewhere much more forward-facing--I'd recommend considering this also, as it's still somewhat of a mystery to many what types of sites/interests are hosted on Miraheze, and what they're about. I'd almost be tempted to ask MH to implement an editable summary dialog for public sites, so a blurb about what the site contains can be displayed in the wiki browser (perhaps this can be imlimented automatically into some other page or wikibrowser can be given some added functions and a facelift? Sorry, that's a wishlist item perhaps). | -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 02:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH I already missed the possibility to find corresponding wikis by some easy method, so I'm highly welcoming the tags. I mostly stumbled upon wikis that I like, I didn't find them. Tags would be a great way to group them in more granular ways. As for the which tags question - I think that whatever list anyone will come up with, there is someone wanting a tag that totally makes sense and isn't in that list. So some way of adding tags would be necessary. But I fully agree with Dmehus' concerns on this. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#283cbd,#9030b0);-webkit-background-clip:text!important;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Soukupmi (talk) (✔) 11:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically, I think it's quite possible we don't need to change the way wikis are categorized, but rather we'd keep the existing single category system, but add an additional tagging field that allow wiki bureaucrats to tag their wikis. The challenge, of course, with tags, is that unless you have a controlled vocabulary system, you'll get some wikis using one synonym for their tags and other wikis using a different synonym for their wikis. Another problem, too, whether we use a controlled vocabulary system or not, is wikis tagging their wikis incorrectly, which also adds to the inconsistency and difficulty in colocating similar wikis in similar tag groups. Dmehus (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, problem with infoboxes
It's not the first time I post about this, be it on the Steward's or here in the community noticeboard. To cite the other times I posted about it: "After importing some .xml files from other wikis, I somehow managed to break all my infoboxes, as shown on this link: ".

Being honest, it was a long time ago that I imported these .xml files, and I don't really remember any specific details. In any case, it was said to me that I would have to make the wiki public for troubleshooting. That wouldn't be an issue. I hope that, this time, I can get some closure on this issue.

Any help is appreciated. -- IvanCastroTheFool (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's been more than a week, already. Does anybody have any ideas about how to solve this? -- IvanCastroTheFool (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. -- IvanCastroTheFool (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Scary transclusion for the English Wikipedia
Could you please enable scary transclusion for the English Wikipedia for https://forecasting.wiki? Thank you! Nikos (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you're talking about Interwiki, then the English Wikipedia can currently be transcluded by using the  or the   prefixes, these prefixes are set to transclude globally. But on the other hand, if you're talking about, , on looking at your wiki, it is already set, that means everything should be working fine as it ought to.
 * To find more information about how transclusions works, please see;
 * Take a look at the Interwiki legend on the Special:Interwiki page; and
 * The Manual:$wgEnableScaryTranscluding page on MediaWiki.org
 * With all these you should be able to understand better how Interwiki transclusion; feel free to ask further questions that you have. --  Joseph  TB  CT  CA   12:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help! With your help managed to get it running. Nikos (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

What else can I do about appealing this block?
Hi. I don't know where exactly to put this, so sorry if this is in the wrong place. My "main" account is named ApexAgunomu, and it is currently blocked indefinitely on the Closing Logos Group wiki for posting gibberish. I still have talk page access there, so I posted a block appeal there around five days ago. However, I haven't gotten any reply to that request, so am wondering if there is any way I can alert the admins there to see my request. Any help would be much appreciated.

Also, I would use my main account to post this here, but I had asked for it to be blocked here, so I'm using my alt account to post this matter here. ApexTest (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is possible local administrators may have missed your request. With your main account, try sending the blocking administrator a message here on Miraheze Meta. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 19:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * My main account is blocked from this noticeboard and almost every other namespace (which I did ask for) and I can't ask to have that block removed because my talk page for my main account is protected. So I'm using this account. ApexTest (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * but maybe I can ask them on this account. How do I find out who the admins are? ApexTest (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I enable the HotCat feature on my wiki?
Thanks for any help. ApexTest (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To use the HotCat gadget, you need to import this hotcat js code into MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js in your own wiki. Then, following the guidelines stated in mw:Extension:Gadgets, add the HotCat.js code which you previously imported into MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition so that all users can use this tool in Special:Preferences.
 * P.S. Seems you are a sockpuppet of an ApexAgunomu, an infintely blocked account in meta. Note that this is considered as block evasion if you are really a sockpuppet of it. --Matttest (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, ApexAgunomu is my main account, but as the block on my main account is a self-requested block, and I needed help with the two issues I posted here, I didn't see anything wrong with using this account to post here. And thanks for your help. ApexTest (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that is not the case. Dmehus clearly stated in your account’s blocking reason: “As such, though a self-requested block, any unblock request from the user should have the consent of at least one other Meta administratorand/or Steward other than the unblocking administrator” It means that you should place a unblock request and get 2 admins consent, including Dmehus, instead of using this account otherwise it may be considered as block evasion. Therefore, I am pinging Dmehus here to clarify this, thanks. Matttest (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for the block to be lifted though. I just had two issues I wanted to bring up here, so decided to use this account here for that. I don't see that there's a problem with that. ApexTest (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Attribution nuances on a forked wiki
Hello! General advice question. I'm currently working on a wiki fork (currently still private), and I plan to stick a little attribution template at the bottom to the effect of "This article incorporates material from "XYZ" article at the Blah wiki on Fandom and is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0" at the bottom of all imported articles. However, a number of articles (including some vital articles) were written entirely by myself or editors who are coming over with the fork (hereafter just "we editors") while we were on the other wiki, or the current version of the article as imported contains only content written by we editors with very little content retained from prior versions written by non-forking editors. So, my questions are:
 * Is this necessary on imported articles entirely written by we editors, i.e. we editors are the only people in the history?
 * Is this necessary on imported articles where the current version is entirely content produced by we editors, i.e. none of the current version is contributed by prior editors because it was written out? (Without getting into the weeds of "how do you determine this", assume a strict interpretation of "none")
 * If an imported article becomes rewritten to not use any content from the other wiki, can the attribution notice be removed? (Again, without getting into weeds)

Generally speaking, is this attribution strictly necessary anyway when the entire history was imported with all revisions and attributions? I would like to do it just to make sure everything is copacetic and for CYA reasons (there will potentially be bitter feelings about this fork even though it's all above board due to license), but I'm also wondering that as a secondary, general question. (If anyone answers, please ping me!) —CaptainOfTheTidesBreath (aye, captain!) 18:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If the entire revision history was imported then you are set and you don’t need to put a notice saying that an article was imported from Fandom, etc. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 21:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the answer! I'll reconsider because it's a lot of labor to institute it. I'll hold on to the template in case there's bitter feelings about forking the wiki from the Fandom community side of things in case we need to smooth relations over, but that's reassuring. Thank you! —CaptainOfTheTidesBreath (aye, captain!) 23:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I too am an emigré from Fandom but I quibble with this response. (1) Importing the history discloses all the previous authors, but only as usernames, which don't necessarily match any username at Miraheze and don't completely identify them.  (2) Yes,  page-by-page edit would be labor-intensive.  Not labor-intensive to globally add a template to the bottom of every content page that says that edits before such-and-such a date are the work of the named authors at the Blah wiki.   18:41 22-May-2022

Metroid, Square Enix, and Pokemon
So at the top it says I can "Solicit volunteers' assistance to help maintain or write content for your wiki", so I'm assuming it's ok if I welcome others to edit some wikis that me and a few others have been working on (hopefully not breaking any rules)? Metroidpedia and Square Enix Wiki are two wikis started by me and Dark Matter Man about a month ago, so those are low on content. There's also Pokemon Wiki, stylized after the Super Mario Wiki, and it's recently surpassed 100 articles (someone else has been helping out on there). There's a couple of other wikis, but I figured I'd point these three out for starters. Bawitdaba (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Block Review Requested
Pinging as they are the admin involved in this case.

Hi. I would just like a second opinion on this block situation concerning my account ApexAgunomu (https://publictestwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/ApexAgunomu) at Public Test Wiki. I do understand that I should not have tried to evade my block, but I feel that restarting my block was a little excessive. Let me explain the circumstances. On May 15, I made a side account named Tomete1404 in a moment of poor judgement because I really wanted to edit the Public Test Wiki again (I was originally blocked until May 29). However, after around 15 minutes, I reverted the edit I had made with the Tomete1404 account and asked to have it locked because I realized I should just wait my original block out.

In summary, I feel that the block reset was not warranted because I made two edits with that account and then promptly reported it to the stewards because I realized that I shojld not have made the extra account. If I had continued to edit with that account and someone else had figured it out, or if I had gone a considerable amount of time and made several edits before reporting it, then yes, I would agree with the main block being extended. Any second opinion on this matter is appreciated. ApexTest (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You are amazingly lucky you don't have an indefinite block and more than enough patience has been given to you. You've repeatedly ignored warnings and broken rules. You clearly have zero regard for the policies of public test wiki. I don't give tolerance for evading blocks. If you use another account while blocked, the time your blocked gets reset. Every time with no exceptions. I'll speak to the other consuls though. Consuls/Stewards: Can I ask that no action is taken without informing me? ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: block appeal had the condition that it could only be shortened by one consul + one non-consul community member agreeing. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I made a side account named Tomete1404" is an admission of ban evasion as well as violating your unlock agreement to not use multiple accounts. You've been given so many chances before to stop doing things like this and this proves that you haven't changed. There is therefore not much to review given you're evaded your block (and unlock conditions) and have done so in the past which makes you saying it was just a one time thing/poor judgment hard to believe. If you are unable to follow TestWiki's very few and simple rules, I would suggest doing tests on your own wiki(s) instead. You may try to appeal this later in time but for now I'm not inclined to accept. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I should not have made that account to begin with, but I had thought the fact that I only made two edits with it and self-reported it would be seen as an extenenuating circumstance. But I guess combined with my past history at the test wiki that doesn't hold true. I will show that I am capable of obeying the guidelines of the wiki when I come back, and not test anywhere I'm not supposed to. ApexTest (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The block only being reset and not changed to an indefinite one is taking that into account. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It was indeed poor judgment on your part, yes, but I thought this was resolved. You voluntarily self-reported your alternate account in  on IRC. The account was locked as a self-requested lock. I amended your locked alternate account's block by unblocking it as unnecessary given the timing of the account creation + your self-reporting it. You're making slow progress, but I am seeing capacity for learning, and was actually contemplating unblocking your main account on Public Test Wiki, as I don't feel the block serves any purpose; we have an abuse filter that Chrs significantly adapted, to help guide your behaviour. This can be amended as necessary. Dmehus (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the rejected block appeal says it can not be removed unilaterally. I remind you of that. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate. Dmehus (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very clear on what I wrote. It's fairly visible for all to see. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked at my talk page, it says "This block is NOT to be removed without consulting at least one other consul and one other non-consul sysop whoever you are and you should give time for anyone to respond." So I guess we would have to ask one of the people who regularly test there to agree to lift my block. But I do want to say that I will absolutely show that I can abide by all the rules thers. ApexTest (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If this was the first time we would've undoubtedly been more lenient but given your vast history on TestWiki we aren't inclined to give more chances at this point unless you really do demonstrate that you've changed your behavior. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't using your ApexTest account here technically evading your idef Meta block? Sario528 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, yes, though it's a self-requested block, but RhinosF1's revocation of their user talk page access without cause arguably offsets that. Anyway, further to my conversations with Reception123 on IRC, a compromise solution is being arranged, and this thread will be moved there there it's more in scope. Dmehus (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about the possible solution, I hope something can be worked out. Just a note about the talk page access, though. RhinosF1 didn't revoke it when they extended the block. It had already been disabled shortly after my initial block had been placed, because I added some nonsense categories to it. Just wanted to note that. ApexTest (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. This, together with your asking for a block review, suggests significant improvement in your behavioural patterns and demonstrated capacity to have learned. You will need a firmer warning, together with a much stricter local abuse filter, though. Dmehus (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for your replies here. I do understand the reasoning for the block increase now, and though it's still not fun for me, I'll just serve the rest of my block (unless it's lifted early), and obey all the rules when I return and abide by any conditions imposed. ApexTest (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I just have one last question regarding my situation at TestWiki. When my block ends, will I be able to regain admin and bureaucrat right away, or do I have to wait for one or both of those? Thanks. ApexTest (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I personally haven't placed any restrictions on that. As far as I'm concerned, that's a desicion for whoever reviews that request. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

What happened?
I just woke up due to my inactivity on Miraheze. I noticed that my wiki got shut down due to inactive, can it be restored?? The Taki GL3480 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears as if your wiki has been marked as deleted, but it hasn't yet been deleted from the database, meaning a Steward can undelete it for you. — Chrs (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Taki GL3480, your wiki has been ✅ now. Please ensure you have reviewed, or re-reviewed, Content Policy, together with our other global policies with respect to your wiki and your users'/administrators' conduct. Dmehus (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would promise that I would be little active on my wiki and Miraheze. The Taki GL3480 (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in a new thread here, on your user talk page by adding help me in a new thread, or in on IRC (relayed to Discord as  ). Dmehus (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

About special:RequestWikiQueue/24793
Excuse me. I don't know should writing this comment here, but I want my question answer. Why special:RequestWikiQueue/24793 wait yesterday to today? I don't know here system. other request accept, but my request late one day. Do you forgot it? Something cause be maybe. Though, I worry it. I'll ask, please answer. I can't speak English, so this comment may have angry you. And, I think only here in can communication, so wrote here. Long comment sorry. 段ボール (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting Extension:PdfBook
...now that we're closing in on the MW 1.38 era, and talk of this utility hasn't been touched upon on Miraheze in ages.

This contributor deployed PdfBook in a test run on Saturday, May 21, replacing the promising but much-flawed Display Title in his site's lineup. On-and-off reports of its ineffectiveness elsewhere have diminished its long-term prospects; while preparing this post, rendering with ?action=pdfbook at the end of a wiki URL has led to an error message when trying to view the output. On Android devices with Google Docs (like mine), this reads:


 * Cannot display PDF (Title.pdf is of invalid format)

...thanks to which I'm dropping it for good right after this goes to press. (Alerting developers Aran Dunkley and Igor Absorto, and XPosting this message on the extension's talk page, later on; also paging for any additional word.)

At Phabricator last December, Universal Omega himself remarked on its fate:

"PdfBook is mostly unmaintained, and not on Wikimedia Gerrit, so I don't see any fix happening there. We should consider removal."

A real shame, as something like it would sure come in handy for my future books. Let's hope it actually gets fixed soon enough.... Routhwick (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem Template "Scroll box"
Hi, I have a problem with my "Scroll box" template, here : https://fiction.miraheze.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Scroll_box In fact, as you can see on this example here : https://fiction.miraheze.org/wiki/Lord_Voldemort#Citations, the template doesn't encompass anything but the first part and is completely useless. Maybe it's because of the fact that there are templates within a template. Thanks in advance for your help. Darkrai18 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The bug was in Modèle:Citation which I have corrected. You will have to refresh/purge the pages to update. - PercyUK (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much, . Darkrai18 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

CSS page has wrong content model
On my wiki that archives deleted Wikipedia pages, subpages in the Template namespace that should have a Sanitized CSS content model instead appear as normal wikitext, as is evident in pages such as this one. I have CSS and TemplateStyles installed. Is there any way to fix this error? Tali64³ (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you want to change the content model of a page (from wikitext to CSS), you can use Special:ChangeContentModel on your wiki. Let us know if you encounter any other difficulties. Matttest (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know that page existed. Tali64³ (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just an xtra note; it has to be Santised CSS, not just CSS, expecially for template styles, hope this helps :) --  Joseph  TB  CT  CA   07:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)