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)

Do you think this RFC would stand a chance?
I have an idea for an RFC (Requests for Comment) about changes to the Content Policy, but and  suggested that I should ask other users first to prevent it from being snowballed, and Agent Isai specifically suggested I go here to ask. Anyway, here are my ideas for changes: FatBurn0000 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Change the rule "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people" to "Miraheze does not allow any pages on wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people" because we do not need any pages with this purpose, whether or not the wiki itself is made to do so.
 * 2) The rule "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis" should have multiple changes:
 * 3) The rule should apply to all wikis, not just Miraheze wikis, because no wiki should be duplicated; the internet doesn't need two versions of wikis. I understand that it is hard to stop the entire internet from duplicating wikis, but it is something that should be stopped, and Miraheze should play a part in stopping it. I do think that since there are no staff for the entire internet and as a result corrupt staff exist on various sites (including wikis), there can be exceptions for non-Miraheze wikis. However, a user must go through every single option in order before requesting this to be an exception (unless the options say they can do otherwise):
 * 4) Review the wiki's quality. If you want to make an exception, then the most ridiculous reason to duplicate wikis is because they have bad quality. If they have bad quality, then they can be improved. If the changes that need to be made are not against the rules, then just try to clean up the wiki.
 * 5) If the change would concern the rules or requires a lot of cleanup, then ask the owner of the wiki (note that what counts as an "owner" includes the founder, a user who adopted the wiki [this only applies to wikis that are hosted by another wiki-hosting site since independent wikis cannot be adopted], the only bureaucrat [if there is only one bureaucrat] and of course, a user who is stated to be the "owner") or, if there is no bureaucrat who would be considered the "owner", the most active bureaucrat, and talk to them about the change. If there are no bureaucrats or all of the bureaucrats are inactive, you should adopt the wiki. However, note that you should try contacting the bureaucrats first regardless, and if the wiki is independent, you are now free to request an exception.
 * 6) If the bureaucrat you contacted disagrees with you, then do not immediately decide that the bureaucrat is corrupt. Try to have a reasonable discussion with them. If you tried to adopt the wiki and your request was denied, unless you agree with the reason, try to continue talking with the user who denied your request and again, don't immediately decide they're corrupt.
 * 7) If the bureaucrat acts in a way you consider unfair, if you can, calmly talk with them about it. If the same happens with the user who denied your request, do the same thing with them.
 * 8) If the bureaucrat continues to be unfair, then it depends on the case on what you do. If the wiki is hosted by another wiki-hosting site, talk to the users with the highest position (whether or not that is stewards, staff or something else) about dealing with the abusive bureaucrat. If the wiki is independent, however, you are now free to request an exception. If the user who denied your request continues to be unfair, then it depends on what position they have. If they have the highest position, then again, you are now free to request an exception. If they do not, however, and someone is above them, they can be reported to a user with the highest position.
 * 9) If the user with the highest position disagrees, then again, try to have a full conversation with them.
 * 10) If the user with the highest position continues to be unfair after a discussion and there is no point in discussing it anymore, then you should ask the stewards of Miraheze, and if they agree with you, then your wiki can become an exception. In case you're wondering where you can request an exception, request it at Stewards' noticeboard before requesting the wiki, and if your request is approved, then you can now request the wiki at Special:RequestWikiQueue, and make sure you link to the discussion for reference.
 * 11) Although I believe this already applies, I think it should be made more clear that the rule does not just apply to duplicating wikis, but also to the following:
 * 12) Creating pages on wikis that contain destructive criticism towards the wiki.
 * 13) Having any content on wikis that the wiki's staff members have stated that they do not want.
 * 14) There should be a rule that states "A wiki must not have pages that are likely to cause drama". Pages that are considered likely to cause drama are:
 * 15) Negative pages about obscure users on the internet
 * 16) Pages about people who do not want a page about them (this does not apply to informative pages)
 * "A wiki cannot create problems for other wikis". But this already applies to all wikis including non-Miraheze external ones. Does this include humor wikis? Can't they also create an article about another wiki? But all the content of a humor wiki shouldn't be taken seriously, that's a fact. YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 02:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that humour wikis should be able to create pages about other wikis, but I don't think I said that they couldn't; I only said that if the staff members don't want it they can say that won't allow it. FatBurn0000 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, are you sure that Miraheze doesn't allow duplicates of non-Miraheze wikis? According to Raidarr, there are multiple duplicates of Fandom wikis. FatBurn0000 (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. is intended to address systemic issues. The change is not necessary. The wording is deliberate to reiterate our stance; any pages are included by this wording, and are considered 'content policy issues' already. They can be reported and addressed (by removal at request or if systemic and unaddressed reasonably, by wiki lock until fix or removal).
 * 2. can merit additional, if careful language, so lets see:
 * 2.1. I disagree that Miraheze should gatekeep on this. For one, many Fandom wikis have moved to Miraheze, and Fandom is notorious for being sluggish or unwilling to delete wikis for their ambient revenue, nonetheless the entire staff are typically inclined to move in bypass of your written process altogether. For two, communities with severe enough drama and legitimate enough community schisms should not be subject to your proposed bureaucratic process, especially if the wiki intends to make significant enough stylistic or fundamental changes that would not be feasible for another platform. Again, the level of possibilities make this a potential issue. All in all my stance here is not unlike my stance on politics - 'lets worry about ourselves before worrying about other (nations)'. We actually do have a topical duplication problem in several cases locally even if they don't match the strict requirements that would make content forking an issue, and we could do better from a wiki creation standpoint to be aware of and refuse probable content duplication on Miraheze as well as work to remediate the ones that exist. There are a variety of wikis with strongly overlapped purpose as has researched before. In all I would have to oppose based on the broad stretch of this language, and disagree that it is our role to enforce it anyway.
 * 2.2. 'destructive criticism' is a dangerous precedence for 'your criticism is too steamy for us, delete'. For one that is more of a conduct matter, since it does not pertain directly to wiki content. For two this should be addressed by the local community and local rules. It is not the Content Policy's job to moderate at this level. Indeed, 2.2 here is entirely out of scope for the CP as a whole imo. If you don't like the criticism, rebuke it or ignore it, or if it is sufficiently toxic, remove for incivility and unconstructive purpose, all of which is possible with healthy local management.
 * 3. Already covered in full imo by the premise of the existing rule. Frankly I think this is an attempt to enable your lawyering to bring back a fundamentally problematic concept - pages about people with a critical or negative focus - as a legitimate thing since you will have made the policy more specific, but not actually addressed this detail.
 * Not to assume bad faith, but I believe these changes are born of a desire to enable certain forms of content and to realize a more personal vision of what Miraheze should do and allow which would be more controversial if expressed in full to the wider Meta community. Part of why I suggested to have the concept reviewed first is so this could be expressed informally and if possible, changes made to talk out of this line of thought or even make it malleable instead. Unfortunately given the evident purposes of these points and their niche appeal, I'm afraid this one is not likely to pass in addition to what would be my personal outright oppose in a live RfC. --Raidarr (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

FatBurn0000 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, it should still be made more clear.
 * 2) This is why there are exceptions to this rule. Also this doesn't necessarily apply to just Fandom wikis.
 * 3) Fair enough.
 * 4) Not all criticism and negativity towards obscure users is guaranteed to be destructive, it is just a common problem that they will be, which has before happened with the Outcasts and other user reception wikis (including Crappy GachaTubers Wiki, a wiki that is unfortunately still open).
 * 1) Not all criticism and negativity towards obscure users is guaranteed to be destructive, it is just a common problem that they will be, which has before happened with the Outcasts and other user reception wikis (including Crappy GachaTubers Wiki, a wiki that is unfortunately still open).
 * I feel like I agree with FatBurn on this, if this is an existing rule, then it should be stated in the content policy. At the very least I think that "sole purpose" is slippery wording. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 11:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And you. Are you going to open an RfC or not? YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There should be a rule stating, "Only one Miraheze wiki should exist for a topic," because duplicate wikis exist. Tali64³ (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What I am suggesting is that the rule should be for all wikis, not just Miraheze wikis, with a few exceptions for non-Miraheze wikis in case of abusive staff. FatBurn0000 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A user named Blubabluba9990 opened an RfC YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 00:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) There isn't any issue with the creation on Miraheze of a wiki that already exists somewhere on the internet. Some proprietary wiki host having a certain wiki does not give them the rights to it.
 * 2) I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to by "destructive criticism", but being able to criticize a wiki on that wiki is essential to accountability.
 * 3) There is no need for a rule such as 2.2.2, as wiki's generally have some form of content policy or guidelines as to what's allowed. Furthermore, the terminology "staff members have stated that they do not want", as that seems to imply that a wiki belongs to its staff, not its community. — Arcversin (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

FatBurn0000 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) How is there "no issue" with it? There is no need for two versions of one wiki on the internet.
 * 2) What I am saying is, the pages should not suggest that due to the flaws, users should go against the wiki and possibly fork it.
 * 3) Fair enough.
 * There is no issue with it because while it's generally not a good thing, the community of editors around a particular topic isn't bound to a particular platform, and migration away from Fandom is a positive. Also, wikis don't have "owners", so you won't want to use that word in any proposals. — Arcversin (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are exceptions in certain cases, but wikis should still not have duplicates anywhere unless it is truly necessary. If there is a fair enough reason to fork a wiki from another site, then again, exceptions can be made. FatBurn0000 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether a wiki exists some other place on the internet isn't, apart from copyright, relevant to whether Miraheze will host a wiki. It might not be a good thing for communities to be split, but it's best for such situations to be sorted out by the communities themselves, via migration of community members, as opposed to external interference. For other Miraheze wikis, we have the fork provision of the Content policy, but for external wikis, we want to support communities getting out of places like Fandom. — Arcversin (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That still isn't a reason to duplicate a wiki. FatBurn0000 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then please explain your reasoning. — Arcversin (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My reason why I would like no wikis to be duplicated is because there is no need for more than one wiki about one topic. Most issues with wikis can be dealt with. FatBurn0000 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: Proposal 3
This is largely covered by the existing rule that "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people". With regards to 3.1, I'm not sure that obscurity should be a big issue - obviously for identifiable individuals there is a GDPR/right to erasure issue here. 3.2 is basically entirely covered and again GDPR/RTE. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 17:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for Feedback: Adding new default extensions
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * SRE would like to thank all community members who participated in this Request for Feedback. Your opinions will help us decide how to move forward. Thank you! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 22:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Community members,

SRE desires to hear your thoughts and opinions on adding new 2 extensions to the default library of extensions enabled on all wikis by default. The proposed extensions are Purge and WikiSEO.

The Purge extension adds an extra button to the "More" dropdown menu which allows for users to clear the page cache easily instead of manually having to append  to the end of page URLs in order to force clear the cache. The ability to see this button can be revoked from users if desired and assigned to admins instead or the extension can be completely disableable if desired by wiki bureaucrats. Note that even if this extension is not enabled, users can always append  at the end of page URLs to force clear the cache, this extension only makes it easier to clear the cache instead of having to go through the hoops.

The WikiSEO extension extends MediaWiki's default SEO capabilities to allow wiki's to rank better on search engines by default. MediaWiki, out of the box, is horrible at SEO and as such, some wikis take very long to get on search engines or rank very poorly which leads to user dissatisfaction with their wiki. The WikiSEO extension automatically helps generate a description for pages and even automatically inserts an image if needed which allows for nicer looking Discord/Facebook/Twiiter embeds and higher search engine rankings. The extension also allows for wiki operators to manually change the description of a certain page, the image displayed on embeds, and certain other things. Note that even if this extension is not enabled, this will not prevent search engines from indexing your wiki, it will just preclude it from ranking well or correctly on search engines. To prevent indexing from happening, you can change a setting in ManageWiki which would render WikiSEO useless. This extension, like Purge, would be disableable via ManageWiki. We wish to enable this extension by default so that wiki's rank well on SEO out of the box instead of having users guess why their wiki's not doing well on search engines.

Please let us know what you think about this and if you have any thoughts or concerns, thanks! Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely not enabled by default, both because there should be little to no extensions out of the box and because WikiSEO should not be messing around with the HTML without explicit enabling of the extension. No objections to either one as an option. Naleksuh (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that there are 42 extensions enabled by default globally. Additionally, all WikiSEO does is add meta tags which don't mess with page contents, styling or anything else. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 05:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 06:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? I explained why not. I'm much more interested to hear why. Why should they be enabled by default? Naleksuh (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A tab appears under the "SEO" name in Special:ManageWiki of each wiki that enables the extension. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 18:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural – it's important to clarify that global and default extensions are enabled by default. Global extensions cannot be disabled, while default extensions can be disabled. Dmehus (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * mainly with WikiSEO. Miraheze is not good at this (in search engines in relation to FANDOM, which loses from 10 V 0). Even though we need to configure, this extension anyway helps and is important, and maybe it would help to promote Miraheze wikis in search engines if the creators would configure it for sure (ex: Google Search Console). You can see that in the wiki where I manage I already use the extension using the Search Console code, even so, the wiki doesn't display a pace that reaches Wikipedia (which is at the top when you search "Ônibus Wiki") --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 18:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt re: the Purge extension; I'd even support enabling that globally (as a global extension), to be honest. As for WikiSEO, I'm personally not convinced, as many wikis may not want that configuration enabled by default, and there's a fair bit of configuration for it, so there's a bit of a learning curve. Dmehus (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do note that WikiSEO does not need additional configuration out of the the box and is ready to use 100% once enabled. The configuration available for it is extra and mostly focuses on allowing users to verify that they have ownership of the subdomain on a few platforms like Google, Bing, Pinterest, etc. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 06:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. I'd be okay with that, but could we make it not be enabled by default on private wikis? Only public wikis. If so, then I'd be okay with that. Dmehus (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that'd be possible within ManageWiki but WikiSEO doesn't display it's html tags on pages where the user doesn't have read permissions so it wouldn't display a page description/image on a page that visitors don't have access to. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 07:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, there's admittedly not much point in enabling it on private wikis by default. I'd recommend adding this as a soft blocker on any potential implementation. I do suspect Universal Omega would be able to make the necessary ManageWiki/CreateWiki changes to create an option for default extensions on private wikis. Dmehus (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

, I don't believe the appeal of having a 'blank slate' installation (which isn't necessarily true for the amount that comes preinstalled) should preclude default usability for most cases, which is wikis that are highly inexperienced, trying to get somewhere and more than likely fail to realize WikiSEO in particular exists and is useful without hardly having to lift a finger for it to work. Purge is basic QoL, though personally I haven't had a case where I've used it and it actually did something. What this might do is accompany a selection of plugins to enable on wiki creation with the options on by default, but able to be easily ticked off before requesting as well as being able to turn other common extensions on. --Raidarr (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

de la extensión «purge» como predeterminada. Reiteradamente sucede, especialmente en plantillas, que no se visualizan los cambios inmediatamente al presionar F5. /// of the «purge» extension as the default.. It repeatedly happens, especially in templates, that changes are not displayed immediately when pressing F5. Hugo Ar (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Con la extensión WikiSEO no parece ser posible la indexación de todas las páginas de cada wiki público a los motores de búsqueda. La extensión permite la indexación de la página principal del wiki, pero no asegura la de las demás. Las páginas del wiki que administro que aparecen en el motor de búsqueda de Google fueron añadidas por mi desde Google Console. Estos son los resultados Para no lidiar con la indexación manual de cada página del wiki solicito que se tenga en cuenta incorporar la extensión mw:Extension: AutoSitemap. «La extensión AutoSitemap crea automáticamente un archivo "sitemap.xml" en cada evento de creación / edición / eliminación de página. El archivo de mapa del sitio ayuda a los motores de búsqueda a observar las páginas de su sitio. Esta extensión se basa en la extensión ManualSitemap.» Miraheze podría aparecer mejor posicionada en los buscadores si se implementara esta extensión, ya que ahora, si comprobamos cualquier wiki, incluso este (que es el principal) no tiene todas sus páginas indexadas. Con esto no pretendo que cada vez que se cree una página aparezca de inmediato el resultado en cada motor de búsquesa, pero sí, al cabo de tres, cuatro o cinco días. Si las páginas no aparecen en los buscadores, nadie las podrá encontrar. De allí mi interés por este tema. Un cordial saludo. Hugo Ar (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Translated by Google Translator
 * With the WikiSEO extension it does not seem possible to index all the pages of each public wiki to the search engines. The extension allows the indexing of the main page of the wiki, but does not ensure that of the others. The wiki pages that I manage that appear in the Google search engine were added by me from the Google Console. These are the results
 * In order not to deal with the manual indexing of each wiki page, I ask that you take into account the mw: Extension: AutoSitemap extension. «The AutoSitemap extension automatically creates a" sitemap.xml "file on each page create / edit / delete event. The sitemap file helps search engines look at the pages on your site. This extension is based on the ManualSitemap extension.»
 * Miraheze could appear better positioned in the search engines if this extension were implemented, since now, if we check any wiki, even this one (which is the main one) does not have all its pages indexed. With this I do not pretend that every time a page is created the result will appear immediately in each search engine, but yes, after three, four or five days. If the pages do not appear in the search engines, nobody will be able to find them. Hence my interest in this topic. A cordial greeting. Hugo Ar (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Request for overturn on Requests for Comment/Local IP Block Exemption
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * ''The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
 * <span style="">Close overturned. <span style=""> Naleksuh (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Requests for Comment/Local IP Block Exemption has recently been closed, with the statement that Requests for Comment/Local IP Block Exemption is successful.

It clearly is not. Just look at it.

One person defended this closure on the grounds that "consensus is not merely counting !votes" (but did not mention anything about the closure or arguments at all).

To get that out of the way, let's go over the !votes. We see that there is one support, five neutral (which appears to be leaning oppose) and four oppose. One support is not enough to declare something successful no matter what, it is at best no consensus. But of course, it is not even that. Consensus is clearly against it.

You see, as has been pointed out before, consensus is determined by cluocracy, not merrely counting votes. Which is why it is important that several major problems from multiple editors were pointed out, yet pretty much no reason established in favor of it. At all. Even the one single support said they preferred the other proposal and that was it.

Regardless of whether you go by counting !votes or by arguments consensus is clearly, near-unanimously, and without a doubt against this proposal, and I cannot see how any reasonable person would see this as successful. Please overturn it.

Naleksuh (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Naleksuh, that is not that case at all. The "neutral" arguments were not opposed at all, and there was no indication that it was binary outcome to the RFC in that, if one proposal passed, the other proposal must fail. As Reception123 articulated in this close, local IP block exemptions would be chiefly granted by Meta administrators, but Meta Wiki is a bit different than other Miraheze wikis because of the role it plays. Likewise, there may be cases where (a) a user requests a global IP block exemption privately from Stewards, but the user only needs the exemption on Meta Wiki, it would be inappropriate, in my view, for the Steward to share a private e-mailed request with a Meta administrator, (b) an unaffected user would be adversely impacted by a hypothetical Meta rangeblock, and the user is also active on Meta Wiki, (c) a Meta administrator refers a case a Meta IP block exemption to a Steward, or (d) Meta administrators have not responded to a request within a reasonable period of time. While it's true that all Stewards are also Meta administrators, we have to consider this may not always be the case. As to the "neutral" arguments, they were either (a) not opposed or (b) in most cases, generally supportive. Dmehus (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That RFC had nothing to do with global IP block exemption, it was strictly about local IP block exemption. And yes, you are right that it would be innapropriate to share a private email. That does not mean it would be appropriate to grant the request. It should be declined and the user referred to meta sysops, both given previous practices and the (unsuccessful) outcome of that request. Naleksuh (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For one thing, it would seem to me to be quite bureaucratic to decline a valid request that a user requested privately for a valid reason. A Steward could grant a global IP block exemption in such cases, but in considering the need, for example, if a user was chiefly only active on Meta Wiki or only the local Meta rangeblock was a hard block, it would seem to me to only grant the user a local IP block exemption request. Where the Steward is also a Meta administrator, the point is moot, but we have to consider future scenarios where this may not always be the case. You keep saying Proposal 2 was unsuccessful, but I'm not sure how you see that, considering the neutral arguments were either (a) conditional supportive arguments, (b) secondarily supportive arguments, or (c) not opposed arguments. As Reception123 correctly closed, the local IP block exemption is chiefly granted by Meta administrators, usually via Administrators' noticeboard, but there may be scenarios, which are context dependent, where a local IP block exemption could need to be granted by a non-Meta administrator Steward. Dmehus (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not here to re-discuss the original proposal, we are here to discuss whether or not it closed correctly, which it seems you are basing on your own !vote not the outcome. I'd first like to give Reception123 the opportunity to explain their thinking, then comments from others about whether they think it was closed correctly or incorrectly. Naleksuh (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly, absolutely. Other users are free to comment, and I'd be particularly interested to hear what users sharing their neutral/conditionally supportive/secondarily supportive views thought. I was just trying to explain some of the possible explanations for the way in which it was closed, which, I'd also point out, was that Meta IP block exemptions, when requested on-wiki, would be granted chiefly by Meta administrators. I suspect Reception123 will have additional reasons for his reading of consensus. I'm just pointing out that it was a correct reading of consensus, in my view. Dmehus (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand (and expected) that there might be some controversy regarding the close as it was difficult. Regarding Proposal 2, while the votes appear to be "Neutral" it seems to me that they lean towards a conditional support or at the very least allowing Stewards to grant IPBE in limited circumstances. In RfCs it's important to look at arguments rather than merely votes. For example, if we look at Proposal 1 only five votes had arguments attached while for Proposal 2 almost all did. So the votes with arguments would carry more weight than the ones without. Generally I would say that the RfC was too vague for my liking which contributed to the problem, it should have been made clear whether Proposal 2 and Proposal 1 were mutually exclusive and otherwise I don't think that can simply be assumed and there was no indication that that was the intention. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Yes, I'm aware that it is arguments over !vote counts, and even addresses this on the OP. The arguments seem to be in favor against it as the only support did not have any argument and the multiple opposes cited many reasons why it should not happen. Naleksuh (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there weren't really "many reasons" in Proposal 2, just a single reason repeated. There are indeed reasons for doing it, such as the fact that if a user edits only on Meta and requests a GIBPE privately a Steward could grant IPBE on Meta instead rather than having to ask a Meta administrator (assuming they aren't one), since it would be a tricky situation if there's a private email. I would mention though that as I said in my close, it's clear that Meta administrators are the ones granting the role and Stewards should only do so in limited circumstances, like in the example given. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seemed that most of the neutral !votes looked like they leaned toward conditional support, even though they were neutral. In fact, all of the neutral votes except Anpang's looked like they were leaning toward conditional support. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 06:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how I viewed that as well. Dmehus (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's how I would put this: in order to develop expectations for the standards stewards should follow, you must first understand that stewards act solely on trust from the global community. Remember, stewards are not bound by any policy, and may be removed from the position of trust at any time, by any user. It must be acknowledged that, even if Proposal 2 had been considered successful, and stewards effectively "forbidden" from granting local exceptions on meta, there would be no binding force except the expression of the community on the matter. Though, consider—would there be enough support for the removal of a steward for a violation of this kind? Proposal 2 was, in the current contexts and circumstances, closed correctly. You should also notice, Proposal 2 was not closed as "successful". The closure of the RfC with respect to Proposal 2 specifically, refuses to acknowledge either support or oppose, instead synthesizing and summarizing all expressed vantages and opinions. Call it a summary of compromise, or caveat even, if you will. dross  (t • c • g) 09:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * From my view, the RFC was closed while the users were still participating in it and there could have been opposition to those who were leaning towards support or supporting the proposal. I support the overturn and I share and agree with what Naleksuh has already said above. Generally, I prefer Stewards to not to interfere in local (meta) matters and act only where the situation is global. The neutral votes looked like they were leaning towards support but there existed an opposition to it too. Many claimed that local group should be only granted by local admins whose views should also be respected and counted. IMO, the RFC was very vague and it should have been left open for more broader consensus especially if you believed you are going to make a controversial close. --Magogre (talk)  07:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Magogre, please do note that nothing in the closed RFC says that non-Meta administrator Stewards would be granting a local Meta IP block exemption with a valid need (i.e., to edit through Tor) to trusted users on Meta. Indeed, that's the way Reception123 closed this. Also, the fact that the RFC itself was vague or lacked the necessary details or specifics would not necessarily be fixed by additional views being expressed. As Reception123 has articulated above, Stewards would only be granting a local Meta IP block exemption in a very limited set of circumstances where non-Steward Meta administrators are not privy to private details of either the request, or where the user would potentially be impacted by a hard Meta rangeblock, and other limited circumstances such as that. Dmehus (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a bureaucrat on Meta, I have reviewed this closure and will discuss it with Reception as personally I believe the autonomy of Meta should be retained and there ‘’’ is not’’’ consensus for allowing stewards to manage local IPBE. If we look at raw consensus values, 1/5 = 20% support. If the users who abstained from voting on the proposal, had supported it, they should have supported it directly and clearly. Going through the arguments, its one of equal grounding. All the neutral says ‘stewards should be able to assign it’ while all the opposes going ‘only meta administrators should be able to assign it’. Neither side make convincing arguments why or why not their side is the ‘correct’ one. If we take all !votes into consideration that have an argument attached, we get 5/9 = 56%, which to me is still far too low to consider a consensus in favour of passing a proposal. With regards to comments above saying ‘Reception didn’t say the proposal passed’, he said Stewards can grant it - which is the proposal. John (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree the consensus for either proposal is weak, and concur with your assessment in terms of the support for Proposal 1 being 5/9, but I also not feel that reopening an RFC which Reception123 noted was vague and lacked necessary detail. Two of those that expressed views in Proposal 1 stated their support was conditional on the limited use case arguments expressed in Proposal 2. One person in Proposal 2 said their support was per the first user whose support for Proposal 1 was conditional. As well, I would also add that Reception123 didn't say that non-Meta administrators Stewards can grant the local IP block exemption in the same way Meta administrators might; he said that it would be granted mainly by Meta administrators. If I have that wrong, perhaps he can refine or tweak the wording of his close. However, given the vagueness of the RFC, as well as the fact that three users in this thread concur that the RFC was properly closed, it would be problematic to overturn the close. I would propose a new RFC be drafted, one that proposes to adopt IP block exemption as the first proposal, revert to the status quo (by deleting the local IP block exemption) as a second option, or introduces a third option, to add  to the   group on Meta Wiki, consistent with the default permissions. Dmehus (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing we reopen the RfC, rather we modify the closure to reflect reality and remove all mention of Stewards being able to legitimately grant a local user right on an active community where local users are capable of doing so and there is no consensus to allow them to. If we had this situation apply anywhere else, people would contest and argue the infringement of central/global control of a local community - yet Meta seems to be the exception. We always bring up ‘we need better local engagement’ on meta, and then hand control of local groups to Stewards legitimately in policy that do not have global consequences. Also the point of ‘ it stewards can only grant it in situation x or y’, has been the case in the past, and it has been controversial as well. Stewards should push local process and procedure first and foremost, rather than having a back door key in policy to just do it themselves without holding themselves to local community scrutiny. What if a steward consistently misgrants local IPBE? It’s unlikely they’ll lose Steward rights because it’s such a minor point that most won’t even consider it for revocation. But if a local sysop did that, it’s likely they’d lose their rights. John (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I'm not saying, and the RFC is not saying, non-Meta administrator Stewards should be granting IP block exemptions to be able to edit through Tor on Meta Wiki; that can be granted to trusted users by Meta administrators. I was just thinking in terms of the hypothetical scenario where an unaffiliated user would be caught in a potential hard IP local rangeblock, and the user was not active on any other wiki besides Meta Wiki, would it not be more appropriate to grant the user a local IP block exemption than a global IP block exemption? I realize it's a niche scenario, but that's the neutral/conditionally supportive arguments in favour of Proposal 2 said. Dmehus (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally would like to see  added to the   user group, consistent with the default user groups as it doesn't make sense to have Tor blocked locally but yet have global blocks technically not apply to Meta.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 10:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the comments above and after discussion with John, the outcome of Proposal 2 has been reverted. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Problem with Tab
Hi there, I have created a "Tab" template for my pages. Problem, I would like the two ends to be rounded. However, this is only the case on one end. It is only rounded when my Tab has this shape:

Either when it's staggered. My page link : https://fiction.miraheze.org/wiki/Wonder_Woman_(Univers_%C3%A9tendu_DC) My template link : https://fiction.miraheze.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Tab Thanks in advance. Darkrai18 (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The two ends are already rounded?
 * Or you mean all 4 corners to be rounded?
 * Then  should work <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨  11:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about this : Tab1111111.PNG. I would like both ends to be rounded. Darkrai18 (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, then that I have no idea. Maybe an {{if: checking if the next one exists, if not set to rounded else not rounded and continue?
 * Like i have no idea.... <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 12:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying. I'm waiting for more answers. Darkrai18 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This current theme of your wiki (mw:Skin:Monobook) is weird. But let's show the rounded borders preview CSS in the Vector theme: border-top-left-radius: 2em; border-bottom-left-radius: 2em; --YellowFrogger {{bullet}} (Talk — ✐) 16:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * {{ping|Darkrai18}} Your template is too complex for me to locate where to added Template:Border-radius in the other tabs. I have recreated it in a simpler design on the Test Wiki
 * Template - Template:Tab
 * Test Page - Wonder Woman (Univers étendu DC)/Personnalité PercyUK (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments disabled
On 28 December 2021, we experienced severe performance issues globally which led to hours long downtime across all Miraheze wikis. While investigating the issue, we found that the  API module (used by the Comments extension) was at fault as it used an excessive amount of resources whenever called and disabled it which seems to have put an end to the hours of downtime. However, as a result of the  API module being disabled, the Comments extension cannot load comments. We apologize for the inconvenience and are actively working with the upstream developers of the extension to find a solution to this and to re-enable the API module as soon as possible.

In the meanwhile, we encourage you to consider alternatives to the Comments extension such as CommentStreams.

Please note that even though the API module is disabled, extensions that rely on Comments such as BlogPage are not affected and can be used as normal. Agent Isai Talk to me! 01:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This here will have an impact mainly on Qualitipedia wikis, which often use these comments in their articles from what I see. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 01:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is correct; QP cannot reasonably just consider alternatives outright given the lengthy history of existing comments and the familiarity of their use, and losing history is indeed an impact. Then when switched a new history is made to wipe out the old one, or the plugin is switched back to result in a blind period for comment history since from what I understand the data is not compatible between them. I understand Miraheze is doing what it can, but in case of the above it does have an impact and it would be preferable to see a fix than to make an intermediate switch. --Raidarr (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We migrated from CommentStreams... How difficult is to do a module that works and don't spent tons of resources? All the ones we have tried have performance issues or were difficult to comment... Thanks for resolving the downtime :) Jakeukalane (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, it would depend on the upstream maintainer of the extension. A variety of factors come into play such as the complexity of the issue and whether the maintainer has the time to fix the issue. Because of that, we can't give you an ETA unfortunately, sorry! Disabling an API module isn't something we take lightly, it was an emergency measure taken to combat the hours of downtime we suffered yesterday. We are actively working with the maintainer to hopefully find a fix and restore functionality of the Comments extension. However, in the meanwhile, have you tried revisiting CommentStreams? The latest update gave it a facelift and it acts snappier, perhaps you may like that as a temporary alternative.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 09:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There was some confusion on my part. We migrated to CommentStreams but it is not working right now. That lead me to believe that we had the problematic comment extension. Greetings. Jakeukalane (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I still have Miraheze taking 7 seconds to boot. DecabristM (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We still aren't perfect, but the actions taken did resolve the major downtime and improved things. 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ］ |

A few concerns:
 * 1) When will this be back?
 * 2) What is CommentStreams exactly? Can I perhaps see a picture of what it looks like, since the MediaWiki page does not have one. I also would not recommend the Commentbox extension as it just edits the page which is quite annoying.
 * 3) I wonder if this is why it would not let me use the reply button to reply here, so I had to actually edit the page. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I figured out what CommentStreams is, since I enabled it on my wiki. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Bug with the article counter
Hey! I am using the article counter on the main page for readers. But despite the fact that there are already three articles on my wiki, the article counter has been displaying zero for several days. What could be the problem? DecabristM (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that MediaWiki only counts pages with links to them so if a page doesn't have any other pages linking to it, it won't show up in Special:Statistics. Additionally, Statistics gets stuck every so often but gets manually refreshed every 2 weeks so if all your pages have links to each other than Statistics should show them once they get refreshed. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 14:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem was missing links. Thanks! DecabristM (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As Agent Isai said above (even if the page is large and has the main namespace, if it doesn't have links, it doesn't count as articles). And, very small pages in the main namespace don't count as articles, but as pages. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 17:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem with Tab, part 2
Hey there. The tab works very well, I'm very happy with it and I thank you all. I made some modifications but a problem persists: The text appears in white when I'm not on the main page, while I would like it to appear in black when I'm not on the said page. For example, here it appears in white and it's fine : https://fiction.miraheze.org/wiki/Rey_(Star_Wars) But here it stays white : https://fiction.miraheze.org/wiki/Rey_(Star_Wars)/Galerie I would like it to be black. Do you have a solution? Thanks in advance. Darkrai18 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Darkrai18 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Template updated - Template:Tab
 * Test Page 1 - Wonder Woman (Univers étendu DC)
 * Test Page 2 - Rey (Star Wars)/Galerie
 * Test Page 3 - Wonder Woman (Univers étendu DC)/Personnalité PercyUK (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Darkrai18 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Darkrai18 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Issue with our wikis
Hi, I am one of the admins at the music reception wikis. Today we turned on video functionality for the best music wiki, and it appears it allows us to import videos properly. However, there is an issue. When the video is in, it says "Click to load content" which I do not know why, do you know why it appears this way and how we could fix it? FullInterTurn (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would expect an admin to talk about this first, but as I write this review no response. With that, I advise you then, as it is an error of an extension, to open a ticket in the phabricator so they will probably check if there is an error in the extension that is preventing such thing. And if you want, you can invite me to review the wiki. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 01:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A bit of a problem
So I went to reply to the notice about the Comments extension being (hopefully temporarily) disabled, but when I clicked the reply button it took a few seconds to load and then displayed an error screen. I had to end up editing the actual page itself in order to reply. I do hope all of this is fixed soon because Miraheze is the last good wiki-hosting platform: Fandom has multiple problems, ShoutWiki is broken and inactive, Wikisite and EditThis run on ancient MediaWiki software and are inactive, and all of the other wiki hosts and wiki farms use other software and are pay-to-use. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and that isn't the only issue. When you click Save Changes, it takes like 30 seconds to save the changes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See the section above. Current comments extension is currently disabled due to a problem. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 22:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that was talking about the comments that can be created with the "comments" tag, not the thing that lets you reply to talk pages without editing the page. Or is it both. I'm confused. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Specify what you are saying, you yourself stated that you are "confused". --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Which comment extension are you referring to? I assumed you were referring to the one that allows the tag, but you are saying it is also that creates the reply button that allows you to reply to talk pages here, which means it is both extensions. Or are they part of the same extension. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also the fact that for some reason it takes a minute to save edits. I do not know why that is. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I post a template multiple times to the same page without "Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls"?
Is there a way around this? I want my user to fill out a form that selects some values and then have those values displayed simultaneously in two different spots within the page. Thanks for your help! ParentRatings (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is happening because you are using two parameters with the same name (duplicated). To avoid this, you should set the parameter and remove the duplicate, and leave only one. What is your wiki? Could you invite me to analyze the error? --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 22:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Interwiki changes for planetariumwiki
Please edit the following Interwiki prefixes.


 * Wikitroid
 * Prefix:


 * Content:


 * Metroid Wiki
 * Prefix:


 * Content:

No need for transclusion or forwarding on either. dross (t • c • g) 07:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Consult your local Special:Log/interwiki for more information. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 07:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixing collapsible lists for the Sidebar template
Hello. I'm currently having issues with templating on my wiki. My current iteration of the Sidebar with collapsible lists template has the appearance of a normal Sidebar, but the collapsible lists function of the template doesn't seem to work, making it so that only the name of the list is shown without giving the option of expanding its contents. See this if you want a direct example of the issue, this for the template in question.

As far as I know, every template and module that is used by the Sidebar with collapsible lists template is a direct copy from Wikipedia or other wiki templates, so I'm stumped as to what could be causing the issue here. Sylepieus (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sylepieus, it seems that the wiki is private. Only members and administrators can view the pages. Greetings. Hugo Ar (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hugo Ar My bad, it should be fixed now. Appreciate the heads up. Sylepieus (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hola Sylepieus. La plantilla llama al módulo: Sidebar. Lo que veo en el resumen de edición del módulo es que al módulo lo importaste desde la Wikipedia en inglés. Pero, sin embargo, el código no es igual.
 * Wikipedia en inglés: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Sidebar
 * TRIMIRDI: https://trimirdi.miraheze.org/wiki/Module:Sidebar
 * ¿Puede ser esta la causa de que no funcione como lo deseas? ¿O puede ser que aun haya que incorporar otros módulos?
 * Translate by Google traductor
 * Hello Sylepieus. The template calls the module: Sidebar. What I see in the module edit summary is that you imported the module from the English Wikipedia. But nevertheless, the code is not the same.
 * English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Sidebar
 * TRIMIRDI: https://trimirdi.miraheze.org/wiki/Module:Sidebar
 * Could this be the cause of it not working the way you want it to? Or could it be that other modules still have to be incorporated? Best regards and good start to 2022. Hugo Ar (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hugo Ar, changing over the Sidebar module seems to have fixed the collapsible lists part of the issue, though another issue seems to have cropped up as a result. Looking at this template for reference, it's trying to transclude Module:Sidebar/styles.css. It seems that the issue here now is that Module:Sidebar/styles.css is stuck in plaintext and doesn't function as code, even if it's directly copied from en Wikipedia. Do you know how I could fix this? Thanks in advance. Sylepieus (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sylepieus, You must activate Template Styles. To do this go to https://trimirdi.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:ManageWiki/extensions#mw-section-parserhooks y and activate:    TemplateStyles and      TemplateStylesExtender . Greetings. Hugo Ar (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hugo Ar, I've turned on both the extensions as you've advised. There's some progress since the sample template now shows an error message in editing previews, but the issue with the code in Module:Sidebar/styles.css being in plaintext still persists. If it helps, the error message from the sample template says Page Module:Sidebar/styles.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "plain text"). Sylepieus (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sylepieus, Try activating the CSS extension: https://trimirdi.miraheze.org/wiki/Especial:ManageWiki/extensions#mw-section-parserhooks    CSS . Greetings. Hugo Ar (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hugo Ar, I've already activated the CSS extension in advance. The issue still persists. Sylepieus (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sylepieus, te falta configurar algo más porque veo que ocurre lo mismo en otras páginas similares como, por ejemplo, esta: https://trimirdi.miraheze.org/wiki/Module:Navbox/styles.css
 * En la wiki que administro no tengo módulos ni plantillas con hojas de estilo CSS. Todo los estilos los agrego en MediaWiki:Common.css
 * Mi sugerencia: crea una cuenta en Phabricator, describe la situación y solicita que te indiquen el cambio de configuración para que todo funcione correctamente: https://phabricator.miraheze.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/7/
 * Saludos cordiales. Hugo Ar (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Translated by Google Translator
 * Sylepieus, you need to configure something else because I see the same thing happening on other similar pages, such as this one: https://trimirdi.miraheze.org/wiki/Module:Navbox/styles.css
 * In the wiki that I manage I do not have modules or templates with CSS stylesheets. All the styles I add in MediaWiki: Common.css
 * My suggestion: create an account in Phabricator, describe the situation and request that they tell you the configuration change so that everything works correctly: https://phabricator.miraheze.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/7/
 * Kind regards. Hugo Ar (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sylepieus To fix the issue, you'll need to change the content model of Module:Sidebar/styles.css to Sanitized CSS. To do this, follow these steps:
 * On the page, Module:Sidebar/styles.css, click "Page information" in the sidebar under "Tools" to get to its page info.
 * Click the link "change" in the row "Page content model" to bring up a form for changing content models.
 * Select "Sanitized CSS" and change the content model to that.
 * Hopefully this helps solve the error. K599 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Miraheze's relationship to Orain
I have been wondering this for a while, but what exactly is Miraheze's relationship to Orain. I have seen many conflicting answers about it: Some have said it is a direct predecessor, others have said that it is a spiritual predecessor, I have seen people that Miraheze was founded by former Orain staff, but it seems like the exact relationship (or if there even is one) remains ambiguous. In addition, the Orain Meta home page redirects to the Miraheze Meta home page, which implies that Miraheze is at least partially a successor to Miraheze. In addition, this says that Miraheze was originally Orain. Despite all of this, Orain doesn't seem to be mentioned much, and wasn't mentioned in Miraheze's five-year anniversary celebration. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Miraheze and Orain are often linked together because both John and Southparkfan were volunteers on Orain for a long time. In July 2015, they left Orain to make Miraheze but Orain continued to exist as its own independent wiki farm. In September 2015 however, Orain was compromised and all of it's server data deleted. Many wikis on Orain moved over to Miraheze as a result which is why Orain and Miraheze have a sort of link together, Miraheze is a bit like Orain's de facto successor as many Orain wikis moved over to Miraheze and so did a lot of the volunteers and users but in a technical sense, Orain and Miraheze are completely unrelated. Since Orain was no more after 2015, I'm guessing Miraheze bought orain.org to redirect users who thought Orain was still in existence to us as we held a nice portion of Orain's user base. Because we're not technically related to Orain, there's really no need to mention it as it's just a thing of the past. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blubabluba9990, officially, Miraheze and Orain have no direct relationship. Both were/are volunteer run and funded wiki farms, but with different purposes and visions. If trying to quantify the relationship, you could say was inspired by, for better or for worse, Orain. When Orain collapsed, the domain name expired, and Miraheze purchased the domain name and redirected it to Miraheze. Some volunteers also had Orain accounts, but other than those points, that's about the extent of the connection. Dmehus (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. I had figured that Miraheze could somewhat be considered Orain's spiritual successor. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Orain was founded in 2013 by Wikipedians and was attacked in 2015 and do not have relationship with Miraheze. And as you can see in this archive page, some Orain users are the same as Miraheze users today. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Math editor
Hello, it seems math equations editor is missing on this wiki. How can I get it? RedFox (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? Do you mean on this wiki (Miraheze Meta) or your wiki? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agent Isai, I mean my own wiki called mathzadachi. It was created today. Thanks for your quick answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedFox (talk • contribs)
 * You can enable it in your Special:ManageWiki/extensions interface under 'Parser hooks'. --Raidarr (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Miraheze hit 5,000 wikis!
I was looking at the main page and saw that Miraheze is now hosting over 5,000 wikis! That's a great achievement for a wiki farm funded solely by donations. How should we celebrate this accomplishment? Tali64³ (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tali64³, yep, that's right. We have hit 5,000 wikis before, back in early 2020, but that was largely because the wiki closure was broken, so long dormant wikis weren't being appropriately marked as deleted. Dmehus (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats! <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 01:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Milestones usually don't matter that much, especially when it's about the number of wikis (soon the number will go down by a huge number for deleted wikis, currently there are too many inactive or closed wikis). --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 01:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I was thinking about what you said, and I decided to start the Save the Inactive Wikis coalition to save inactive wikis. Would you like to join? Tali64³ (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * However, there are more interesting things to do. An inactive wiki means the owner is sick of it. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 17:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or that they gave up maintaining/editing it, or forgot (all) about it. --Routhwick (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

My talk page goes haywire
This is Katsumi, an admin from Crappy Games Wiki.

It seems my talk page has gone haywire of some sort. I've tried to add this topic to my talk page...

Title: CGW admins visited Hololive Wiki? Content (in wikitext): <pre class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed> So, I've played a bit with Special:CentralAuth.

It seems that some of CGW's admins have visited Hololive Wiki(me included).

I know that the whole VTuber thing is a sensitive topic on the wiki, but still, I'm very curious about why some of the admins are simping Hololive girls.

You know what they say... "Weebs tend to be weird. What did you expect?"

- Allistayrian

~

If I tell it to parse and render the following text, it outputs this message...
 * Unable to transfer content: Error contacting the server for conversion between wikitext and HTML. Please check your Internet connection or try again later if the problem persists. If you still get this error please file a bug

and if I try to add the topic, it gives me an error... However, if I try to create a topic with much fewer characters (about 10-30 characters), it accepts that. Strange...

Is it because of the recent update? 🦖️ <span style="font-family:monospace;font-size:1em;background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,148,188,1) 35%, rgba(23,133,173,1) 100%);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">my Name is Katsumi <rp>(</rp><rt style="color:black;font-size:.95em;text-shadow:0 0 5pt #40bcff;">BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘</rt><rp>)</rp>  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">  contributions  03:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It works for me, so its probably about the wikitext entered in your topic <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 03:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your "test" is 192 characters long. Mine is, approximately twice as long as your "test". 🦖️ <span style="font-family:monospace;font-size:1em;background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,148,188,1) 35%, rgba(23,133,173,1) 100%);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">my Name is Katsumi <rp>(</rp><rt style="color:black;font-size:.95em;text-shadow:0 0 5pt #40bcff;">BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘</rt><rp>)</rp>  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  04:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mathematically speaking, 192 to 370 is exactly one time higher, being not that far off, particularly in terms of characters. On the subject of the bug, he claims it is caused by your connection. Anyway, if this persists, I suggest opening a ticket in the phabricator because the extension. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 04:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Geeze, the signature formatting in this section... Anyway, I tested locally with a block of my own and your post, and the issue here is either temporary or local . At this point issues actually don't have much to do with the version upgrade. Rather the migrations Miraheze is performing to new hardware, which started not long after the update. While it may have been your connection, I can't rule out that you might have been struck with one of the temporary glitches Found the error, investigating locally. Per the local post, all I can advise right now is patience; unless a persistent bug can be reported, Miraheze Tech is not well equipped to resolve the various phantom issues that are occurring around this time. They are inevitable during the upgrade process, which from what I hear can/will extend into early next month. --Raidarr (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon conferring with SRE and doing more tests, the trouble is images. The migrations I mentioned above have specifically made images the most unstable part of Miraheze right now, and trying to post the images into a dynamic form like StructuredDiscussions will cause it to fail. I'd suggest making the post without them and being light on their use in general until the migration is complete and SRE gives word to that effect. Issue is known and basically unfixable right now; no point filing a phab task unless SRE advises it in this thread. --Raidarr (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming changes and performance issues
Valued Miraheze community members,

As you all know very well, Miraheze's commitment to our users is to provide the best MediaWiki hosting for free. In keeping with that commitment, Miraheze is pleased to announce our newest data centre, SCSVG! Instead of renting out servers, Miraheze will finally own it's own hardware for the first time ever. With the addition of this data centre to our server lineup, we will be able to offer our users a much better, faster and smoother experience. For more information on this, please checkout this Phabricator post.

In light of that, we have begun the migration process to our new servers. As you all probably know, Miraheze has faced some performance issues these past few months as we've outgrown our current servers. These new servers will hopefully resolve most if not all of the issues we've faced in the past few months regarding performance (including 502 "Bad Gateway" and 503 "Backend fetch failed" errors). In the process of migrating however, you will likely notice (and probably already have noticed) degraded performance and increased error rates. The migration has exacerbated our current performance issues as, on top of having to serve normal user traffic, some of our current servers are now also copying their files over to the new servers which means that there's an increased strain on them. This means you may notice 502 and 503 errors on some pages which loaded before, especially those pages with lots of images or templates. During this period too, we may need to temporarily suspend some actions such as image-related actions and wiki requests/creations. During this migration period, it may become necessary to temporarily disrupt some processes such as image related actions and wiki creations/changes. It too may be necessary to temporarily disrupt service completely or place wikis on read-only mode. Should this be necessary (we will try to avoid any and all service disruption where possible), we will inform the community with a weeks notice before the disruption occurs.

We know how inconvenient this may be but our hope is that with these changes, we will hopefully resolve all (or at least most) of the performance issues which have plagued Miraheze for these past few months. As always, we thank you for being part of the Miraheze community and we hope to be able to serve you all better in 2022. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to reply to this thread or ask on our Discord/IRC channels.

On behalf of Site Reliability Engineering, Agent Isai (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the message. This has answered to my question. Kind regards. Hugo Ar (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific time of the day when the servers are less busy? I need to make approximately 200 edits (with responsible pause between them, e.g. 60 seconds) that update Cargo tables (this wiki has software documentation, and new version of this software was released today). Edward Chernenko (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Server performance issues are generally random and are not always tied to server busyness or idleness so we can't really give a timeframe for when it would be best for you to do those edits. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you noticed this error, which happens every day (and complicates saving edits). And we hope to get a new server in 2022, as promised. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 15:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing Miraheze is improving its servers, since Miraheze is the last good wiki host left. Also it is good that this is supposed to be finished by the end of January. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we can see more about that at our blog --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 22:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yet another interwiki request
At this writing, the Constant Noble site is missing wmf (foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1), a relic from my 2010s Referata tenure. Hopefully my pledge to receive interwiki adminship doesn't go unnoticed this time here... Routhwick (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Routhwick Agent Isai has done the interwiki prefix for you, but what do you mean by your pledge to receive interwiki adminship doesn't go unoticed? Have you posted an election request on Constant Noble Wiki for local interwiki administrator, to be granted by Stewards? Dmehus (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, I have been the only editor on my wiki (out of 29 registered users). --Routhwick (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Routhwick, oh, have you started a local permissions request or election for local interwiki administrator yet? Note that you are not required to have any persons express a view. An election by acclamation is possible. You just need to start the permissions election request locally, then wait about 5-7 calendar days, then head to here. Dmehus (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet. So how exactly do I go ahead? (I'm assuming I'd have to do it in the Project namespace, right?) --Routhwick (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Routhwick, yeah, you could create like a page called  or something, in   namespace, then have sections for each type of local permission and who grants them and any local prerequisites/conditions you want to have. Then you could make subpages for each of those local user groups, and transclude them on your   page. Dmehus (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I add collapsible blocks?
How can I add collapsible blocks in my wiki, like that: https://trimirdi.miraheze.org/wiki/Template:Randomsidebar ?

Thanks. RedFox (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw that there is a failed TemplateStyles tag up there. First, you will have to add the extension "TemplateStyles" in Special:ManageWiki/extensions of your wiki. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 16:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw in Special:Version that it is active, you will have to create the page "Module:Sidebar/styles.css". --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 16:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to add collapsible text without using CSS? RedFox (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello RedFox. I already spoke with your coworker about this. Please read this. Some configuration details are missing. In Phabricator there are specialized people trained to solve it. Create an account there and explain what happens. There are more details in the link. Kind regards. Hugo Ar (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, @Hugo Ar, thanks for your answer, I'm not sure that's what I need, see my answer to @YellowFrogger. RedFox (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not worry. You don't need to know CSS, just copy the content from Wikipedia, it will work on your wiki. Try this. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 18:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @YellowFrogger, I don't want to use any content from Wikipedia for the moment, my goal is like that: I'm going to create a collection of math problems with their solutions. Some people might want to solve the problems by themselves, so they won't want to see the solutions and the answers immediately. So, I need collapsible text paragraphs which people can open in they want. Is there an easy way to do it? RedFox (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this page here and restore it with the same content. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 18:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @RedFox Would this page about collapsible elements help you for what you want to do? Basically you would add the mw-collapsible class to what you want to be collapsible. K599 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I need, thanks! RedFox (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

IP Masking
Hi. The WMF is going to hide IP addresses of unregistered users. What will be its effects on Miraheze? --Magogre (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * “MediaWiki docs don't make it clear if it'll be togglable for on MediaWiki or what the default behavior is so frankly, I don't know the impact it'll have on us” -- Agent Isai --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 03:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of questions that I'd have about this feature that just are not documented yet, so it's hard to say until this feature is actually implemented. I suspect we'll have to wait for it to be fully released before we can make any decisions, and then, I'm pretty sure we'll have an RfC to determine how exactly this feature will be used on Miraheze. -- Void  Whispers 04:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Why I can't create a page with some text from the beginning?
I want to create many similar pages with some standard blocks. But only an empty page can be created. Is there something wrong with the template? https://mathzadachi.miraheze.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0 RedFox (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're asking how to use input boxes to create pages with the editor having text to start, you would put  inside your   table so you may experience temporarily degraded search performance. This too should also be resolved after a while.

If you have any questions regarding this, feel free to reply to this and we'll answer your questions. Thank you! Agent Isai Talk to me! 21:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good, Miraheze now thinks that their current servers are not nice at all. One thing I would like to know is if these new servers will be fast enough as promised, just like the Wikimedia foundation which takes milliseconds to load on every page. Thus, we can say that we have evolved. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well yes, we've known we need new servers for awhile now which has culminated in this after months of planning. However, I'm a bit confused on the latter part of your statement. We have never promised that these servers will be like Wikimedia Foundation servers, loading in thousandths of a second as you described on Discord. While these servers will be much faster than our current ones, do remember that the Wikimedia Foundation finished 2021 with a total of $231,000,000 dollars in net assets so of course they have the resources to ensure that connections are served in a very fast manner. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 21:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But will the servers be fast anyway (not at wikimedia level), but much faster than these? --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 21:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they'll be faster than our current servers. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that the migration will be finished after January 14 and that servers will be much faster. Editing is really annoying right now since everything is so slow. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This means that we will migrate on 14 January and hopefully be done in 30 minutes. After that's done, you should have a much more enjoyable experience on Miraheze as your traffic will be served by our new, faster servers. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything is slow, glad the team that runs the Miraheze website realizes this. Errors 502 and 503 occurring, error saving edit, trying to login. We hope that all of this is suppressed as it is the cause of bad SEO or user churn. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 00:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. It is good that this will be complete sooner than I expected. I guess this means the migration will be complete at 23:15 UTC on January 14, 2021 (or 6:15 PM in my time zone). Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And here 8:15. Even so, these are estimated minutes. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 16:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Once the migration is completed, does that mean the Comments extension will finally be enabled on all wikis? 🦖️ <span style="font-family:monospace;font-size:1em;background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,148,188,1) 35%, rgba(23,133,173,1) 100%);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">my Name is Katsumi <rp>(</rp><rt style="color:black;font-size:.95em;text-shadow:0 0 5pt #40bcff;">BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘</rt><rp>)</rp>  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  13:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments extension is active when connecting via SCSVG, yes. This will be automatic. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"Miraheze Bots"
There's been some confusion on this. Is the so-called "Miraheze Bots" project an official Miraheze capacity or not? I was under the impression that it was, it is using Miraheze resouurces, branding, and legal contracts, but has not been conforming to Miraheze standards, has been distancing itself from Miraheze, and one particular member there has been acting unilaterally on it. Are we aware of this, and if so, do we regard "Miraheze Bots" as an official Miraheze project? If not, do we tell "Miraheze Bots" to stop using Miraheze's branding? Naleksuh (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I (and you too probably) know, the project has an official agreement with Miraheze. Could you explain how it "has not been conforming to Miraheze standards, has been distancing itself from Miraheze, and one particular member there has been acting unilaterally on it"? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 01:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of any agreement with Miraheze, could you share more info on that? Yes, the specific thing I was referring to with MHBots is a case with one particular person acting unilaterally on the project instead of consensus, removing Phab comments from established users that did not violate any policies, and also leaked a private conversation without my permission. Naleksuh (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was able to find this agreement dated June 2020 between Miraheze and MirahezeBots. I am unaware if it has been superseded but to the best of my knowledge, we still maintain a relationship with MirahezeBots. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't communicate anything about Miraheze's relationship with the Miraheze Bots project. Just how Miraheze will host its bots (which granted, is the name, but doesn't tell much about the project). Naleksuh (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why those comments were removed, but I'm sure there was a good reason. I don't think that the user (not naming names here) has been doing anything wrong. We do have a partnership with Miraheze to my knowledge. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 02:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MacFan4000, if you are aware of a partnership, please link me to that. Just saying there is one is not helpful especially if we do not know its terms. Naleksuh (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no formal agreement between us and Miraheze. We use the same NDA as Miraheze and the name. We use our own servers that we've procured ourselves (with the help of SRE) and set our own policies and decisions which we discuss privately within the scope of our appointed roles. You can find our Terms of Use on our website which state "Miraheze Bots is a community project supporting Miraheze, a project from Miraheze Limited. However, Miraheze Bots does not fall under Miraheze Limited's governance and as such, Miraheze Limited is not responsible for Miraheze Bots' compliance to UK regulations. Miraheze Limited's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy do not apply to services offered by Miraheze Bots." ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  07:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for Feedback: Removal of $wgUseCategoryBrowser in MediaWiki 1.38
Hi everyone,

SRE is soliciting your feedback on the potential removal of $wgUseCategoryBrowser in MediaWiki 1.38. It has been proposed upstream in T298553 on Wikimedia Phabricator that Category Browser be removed so we want to know your opinion on this so that we may forward your feedback and input to MediaWiki developers. Please let us know what you think about this and whether you would be ok with the proposed change going forward or no, your feedback is very valuable. Thank you! Agent Isai Talk to me! 10:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't that HotCat? My knowledge of this function is limited. Too bad, because you put categories through your browser. Maybe not. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 15:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with HotCat. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agent Isai Can you clarify what this means, perhaps with an accompanying screenshot example, ideally hosted on Miraheze Commons or Wikimedia Commons, of what CategoryBrowser is? It's not obvious to me, as from that technical MediaWiki manual page, it looks as though it's the category links at the bottom of every page. If that is the case, this is an absolutely terrible idea on Wikimedia's part, and will render categories as a navigation tool even less useful than ever before. I'm hoping that's not the case, though. Dmehus (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur in seeking an example of what it means. I'm assuming it's not necessarily category links on pages or even listing subcategories/pages in categories (both of which I would strongly oppose removing), but what it actually means aside from that, no clue. This is a very technical inquiry that even at the original mediawiki phabricator link is poorly explained for lineman understanding. --Raidarr (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In attempt to clear up some confusion, I did some digging into this feature and think I have a slight idea what it does now. Following mw:Help:Categories, it would seem that  enables a secondary section in the categories box which lists all the parent categories of the categories that a page belongs to, specifically in a breadcrumb hierarchy. So... In the hopes that I understand correctly... A page with the feature might look something like this:

Categories : Foo | Bar | Baz Encyclopedia → Articles → Foobar → Foo

Encyclopedia → Articles → Foobar → Bar

Encyclopedia → Articles → Baz


 * -- dross (t • c • g) 07:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki name change
Hi, my wiki is called Ornithopedia, and I would like it to be changed to Spacepedia. The original link address is ornithopedia.miraheze.org and my requested link address is spacepedia.miraheze.org. --DoveTheWingedWarrior (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please make domain change requests at Phabricator. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 01:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * DoveTheWingedWarrior, as your wiki was only just recently created and had zero content on it, I have ✅ it for you, as I see no reason in creating a make work project for SRE to migrate a wiki database with zero content into a new wiki database name. Please, instead, request a new wiki on your new subdomain, and wiki creators will review it in due course. Do take care, too, to choose a finalized subdomain and define a clear purpose, scope, and topic. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Change in links for blocked users
I noticed that the links to the user page, including contributions etc, changed for users who were blocked on a wiki, being underlined and italicized, which I noticed only on Miraheze wikis. If it was Miraheze that made this change, why and for what purpose? --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 11:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant strikethrough, not "underlined" --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 11:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm? User:Examknow
 * Doesn't seem to be like that for me <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 11:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See the list of contributions from a blocked user in Desktop version. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 12:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothings wrong.jpg nothings wrong to me <span style="display:inline-block;border:2px solid #bfff00;border-radius:8px;background-image:linear-gradient(to bottom right, #75ff75, #ffff80)"> Anpang 📨 12:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , it is not necessary to upload files for simple things. You may like to use Imgur. Magogre (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , it is not a change by Miraheze. You have a script enabled in your /global.js which marks all blocked users as such. If you don't want this, remove the line two of your /global.js. Magogre (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I think that's what tricked me again since I enabled it preferentially that option. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 13:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Directors Meeting, January 14th, 2022
Hi everyone,

This is notice of the next meeting of Miraheze Limited's Board of Directors on January 14th, 2022. You can view the agenda here. Any further discussion points for the Board are always welcome.

On behalf of the Board, Owen (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What does that mean
It's been a while since I noticed that in the Requests comments section of requesting a wiki, there are comments from, probably, a robot, which comments on random things like "Approval Score : (Random number)", and I don't quite understand what this Approval score is, (the wiki request score? or the wiki creator's decline/acceptance?). I don't understand this score provided by this "robot" (robot because it's probably tested for automated wiki creation according to what I saw in a community wishlist). If someone who knows more than me, explaining what "Approval score" is, I would be grateful. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 20:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the "Approval score" comment is done by the CreateWiki AI. Based on the past 2000 wiki requests, the AI compares the request to them and assigns it a score from 0.01 to 1.0 depending on the request's perceived quality. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 20:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)