Community noticeboard

Archives:
 * Archive 1 (23 July 2017 - )

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


 * label1=Text


 * data1=

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

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

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

Feel free to add yourself or another user here. If nominating another user, please notify them so they can accept.
 * I, CnocBride, hereby announce my nomination to run for a position on the Code of Conduct Commission. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  22:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also have the intention and I am willing to be part of the Code of Conduct Commission. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 01:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to nominate John as a Commission member. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 06:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accepted. John (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Acceptance pulled. Toxicity remains in that ATT users wish to continue pilling on to oust me from the community and service again. John (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to nominate LulzKiller as a Commission member. Of all of the admins at the largest wiki hosted at Miraheze, he has the most experience with what this Commission would be dealing with. --Robkelk (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Declined due to lack of feasible path to election. LulzKiller (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Salient point there. At any rate, I would like to nominate User:CnocBride and User:AlvaroMolina as possible candidates for this position. GethN7 (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand I am already nominated but I thank you for your nomination :) &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to nominate and  for their outstanding contributions to Miraheze, especially helping with Phabricator and feature requests. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  18:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accepted. MacFan4000 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accepted. Videojeux4 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to nominate if he would accept the position. Although the administration behind both Miraheze and ATT seemed to have butted heads (possibly still are but hopefully not) I think that GethN7 can remain level headed and provide an unbiased opinion on matters which I think will be helpful on any sort of commission. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 01:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If appointed, I have every intention of putting my duties before my bias, that I explicitly promise here, and if I falter in this, please hold me to account, should I be accepted for this position. GethN7 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as your acceptance of the nomination for the user-voting period. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 03:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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

John's eligibility

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


 * Honestly, I think that the way some users treated John has been a shame, the user, despite having temporarily withdrawn and having renounced his advanced permits, is still part of the community and has continued to work in other areas. linked to Miraheze by assisting in IRC and helping the sysadmins with some tasks. Also, as a co-founder of Miraheze he could have done an excellent job in the Commission. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (<font color="#137500">✉  - <font color="#137500">✔ ) 11:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly which users have mistreated John? What I see is:
 * John was nominated and accepted the nomination;
 * I asked whether someone who publicly stated he had left Miraheze months ago was eligible;
 * Reception123 stated that any user (his emphasis) was eligible;
 * Looney Toons and GethN7 asked whether somebody who was working behind the scenes was a user;
 * John withdrew his nomination, blaming "toxicity".
 * And, as I said earlier, being a co-founder should not make any difference or give anyone special privileges. I also point out revi's statement at the very start of this section: "As a member of organization that enforces Code of Conduct, you are held to higher standard than ordinary users. You may face less leeway than other users." If someone cannot handle questions about whether he qualifies for the position, would he feel comfortable being held to higher standard than ordinary users? --Robkelk (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I may not have been on Miraheze for very long, but I can clearly see that some people are not treating John fairly in comparison to other users. I used to edit Wikipedia, and it seemed that on Wikipedia people treated each other with more respect, or at least gave other users more time to explain themselves and were more open to their answers. Perhaps that is just because there are hundreds of thousands of people editing Wikipedia, compared to just a couple hundred editors on Miraheze, however I think that even with only a couple hundred people we can still treat each other fairly and not simply dismiss someone's thoughts outright because of opinions or biases held about that person. If everyone wants Miraheze, and therefore their own wikis, to improve, we can't keep throwing stones at each other. CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, "If someone cannot handle questions about whether he qualifies for the position, would he feel comfortable being held to higher standard than ordinary users?" - I never answered the questions because I don't think it's my place to tell people how to think about me - since it's quite clear everyone has made their mind up. The statement is "any user" therefore, yes I qualify. I didn't withdraw because I can't answer - I withdrew because ATT decided to witch hunt me stating facts with no research and no informed conclusions. I am active, but no one bothered to do the research. John (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * John, I am saddened that you cannot look past your biases regarding ATT and look at the questions being asked simply as questions being asked no matter who is asking them. Asking the questions is itself the process of doing the research - we need the answers and the transparency in gathering the information in order to be able to make up our minds. --Robkelk (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no bias to look past. You asked if I am eligible and you received a reply before I read it. Another ATT user then comes and asks the same question stating I am not active - I answer proving I am. A third then comes repeating a similar point which I had answered to the second user. The statements made were I am not active - which implied you researched when making the statements. You don't go up to someone and go "Your name is Dave. What is your name?". Also I recommend people don't accuse me of bias when they seem to have their own assuming because I was nominated, its some co-ordinated plot because of who I am. I guarantee if this was any other user that statement would not have been made. John (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, your bias is showing. Your statement that the admins of ATT are engaged in a co-ordinated plot is false, and I request an apology and a retraction from you for making that statement in accordance with the letter and spirit of the first three bulleted points of the "General Conduct" section of Miraheze's Code of Conduct. We do not have some members-only IRC channel where we talk about how we're going to provoke somebody who doesn't agree with us, or anything similar. In fact, we promote diverse views. As for my concern about this Commission becoming a "star chamber", we also promote transparency, so it is reasonable that we would want somebody who promotes transparency to be on the Commission. Your analogy is flawed; the faux-quote should have been "Your name is Dave. What do you do for a living?" Finally, there are other users about whom I have concerns regarding their lack of transparency - if any of them are nominated, you will find out who they are because I will make my concerns known. --Robkelk (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Arguing clearly isn't getting anyone anywhere. We are here to pick members of the commission, not to argue with each other. CoolieCoolster (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


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

General criteria for nominees

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


 * (1) Status as a founder does not make one user outrank others but it does evidence long-term commitment to the website. (2) A search for nominees who have never taken sides in a past dispute will have us ruled by novices, including those who will have quit by the time we need them.  However, if we have tight-enough policy documents to guide them, that might be a fresh approach.  (3) Failure to start a wiki is suspicious — like the continual president of the Singles Club who never goes on dates — but not fatal, as there are many different ways to contribute besides text content.  (4) The above does not suggest there is a right answer; everyone who chooses to vote brings his own values to it.  (5) The above debate has been needlessly adversarial — from John taking the worst way the resistance to his nomination, to Robkelk demanding surrender and promising future battles — compare Amanda nearby.  It does not produce good decision-making nor look good to passers-by who might join.   15:58 4-Nov-2017
 * I think it's something that should be seen on a case-by-case basis, I do not think that being or not being a wiki founder should be relevant to being a member of the Commission, as long as you have the disposition to be able to work in the 2 things in a balanced way and there are no conflicts with the rest of the community that can be inferred in the normal development of the task. Regards. —<font color="#1406D0">Alvaro Molina (<font color="#137500">✉  - <font color="#137500">✔ ) 17:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal on timeline
I propose we end nomination period by one week after void's posting this section (23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)) and enter the voting period. We already have around 2x allocated seats for the commission. I also propose we make a vote on dedicated page like Code of Conduct/Commission/Election/2017. &mdash; revi</tt>  10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As of this posting, we have two accepted nominations for two posts. That's hardly "2x allocated". --Robkelk (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was counting John. Yup. Still, I don't see value delaying this for more than a week. &mdash; revi</tt>  13:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel uncomfortable with the idea of the inaugural staffing of the Commission being by acclamation, no matter who the people essentially being appointed are. --Robkelk (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with delaying the vote, but then how long? &mdash; revi</tt>  15:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A dedicated page is a good idea, after all, we most likely be using a similar process next year. Voidwalker (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that having only 2 users nominated and them being "automatically" made members isn't a too good idea. Though I believe the one week limit for nominations is more than enough, and if anyone wants to nominate someone they have sufficient time. As for the dedicated page I agree that there should be one, since there will be yearly elections. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 18:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Just want to confirm, are the nominations ending? We only have 3 members currently that have been nominated and accepted:, and me. Personally I believe there should be more members on the commission but if these are the rules of the election and only 3 members are willing I am willing to proceed. &#32;  CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  20:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We could wait 1 more week in case someone wants to nominate, I think with a minimum of 5 candidates we could start a votation. —<font color="#1406D0">Alvaro Molina (<font color="#137500">✉  - <font color="#137500">✔ ) 21:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Quick draft at the link above. Suggestions welcome (especially rules). No indication of closing nominations. &mdash; revi</tt>  16:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My idea is that on the Statement/Question page and on Voting pages, everyone have a 2-level section headings for QnA/Votings. Now back to the abyss... &mdash; revi</tt>  16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Help with imports from wikipedia
I was wondering if anyone can help me with figuring out why certain templates don't seem to be working properly after importing them from wikipedia. In my project I require locational articles to aid the general information I have already created/written but I simply don't have the time to research and write them, therefore, thought I would use some wikipedia articles to save considerable time. After exporting the test page I wanted to try (including all the associated templates used on that page) and importing into my own wiki, the information is there but certain templates don't appear as they do in the wikipedia article. Can anyone with considerable more knowledge than me regarding this shed some light as to why they aren't functioning and displaying properly. The page I am testing is Appleby-in-Westmorland and as you can see it doesn't look like the original. Any help to fix this is greatly appreciated. Thanks. 17:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I recall reading that the ability to import map data relies on a MediaWiki extension that might not be installed on your wiki.  17:19 5-Nov-2017
 * Are you referring to the geographical coordinates located at the top right above the infobox? The map data inside the infobox appears to be rendering fine but the infobox itself isn't. The same goes for the navigational box at the bottom of the page. I know they all require different elements to work correctly, I just don't know what they are and how to get them working. 17:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that you selected "Include templates" when importing either the article or the template? Sometimes if something is missing it will do stuff like that. Please also see this. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 18:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I definitely selected include templates, I always do just to be on the safe side. I have used import and export on numerous occasions but not usually for pages with quite so complex templates and modules. I already had imported the relevant stuff from Void's infobox checklist, the only difference is my commons.css page didn't have the full text from wikipedia. When I imported that (and consequently overwrote my own css) the templates rendered much better. The problem was all my own styling wasn't there any more. So, putting it back broke the templates again but I need my own styling as well. Still trying to figure this one out. 18:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * is good with CSS so he can probably help you fix that part. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely have to ask for help because no matter what changes I make I can't get it to work. if you get chance would you have a look at my commons.css page (try not to laugh too much) and see where I am going wrong. I need to keep my own styling (located in the top quarter of the page) but integrate it better with wikipedia's styling to make the inboxes/navboxes work. As always, any help would make this rather confused chap most grateful.  18:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look now, it seems as though there is an unmatched set of braces {} somewhere. -- Void  Whispers 19:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the } character I added and make sure it's placement makes sense. I don't know where you wanted to end that @media block, so I just threw one in there where it made sense. Should work now, lemme double check. -- Void  Whispers 19:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Reset indent. Thanks for looking, very much appreciated. One missing character, like I was ever going to work that out! Well spotted. It works so I am happy to leave it as it is as I don't really know where I would end that block. Can you explain what the function of that additional brace is and why it works where it is currently located? Just trying to understand how it works now. Cheers. 19:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Basically, there was this block:

@media (max-width: 768px) { background-color: #282828; } img.editbutton:hover { background-color: #282828; }
 * 1) hamburgerIcon:hover {
 * The @media line is opening a block of styling, but this block is never closed later. The character I added closed the block. If you move that character around, you change where the @media rule ends. -- Void  Whispers 21:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense when you put it that way, thanks. I do have another problem regarding templates/modules exported from Wikipedia. I am sure I have included ALL the relevant templates/modules needed to make the infobox work correctly but I am having real problems getting the coordinates template to display the maps properly in this template without the fatal error message as seen on this article page. I have fixed most things apart from this and I am stumped. Could you possibly advise on a solution? Cheers. 23:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

'Staff' appointments to the Code of Conduct Commission
Per the changes to policy, the system administrators are appointing 2 of the 5 code of conduct commission members, the Steward body is appointing one member, and the community will vote on the accepted nomination to appoint the last two members. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 02:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

System Administrators' appointments
The two people chosen by system administrators' to represent them on the CoC commission are:
 * 1) User:Reception123
 * 2) User:Revi

Stewards' appointment
The person chosen to represent the Stewards on the CoC commission is the only Steward:
 * 1) User:Void

Community Nominations
Community nominations will be posted here shortly after at least 5 people have accepted a nomination.
 * 1) User:AlvaroMolina
 * 2) User:CnocBride
 * 3) User:GethN7
 * 4) User:MacFan4000
 * 5) User:Videojeux4

Numbered sections
At the moment, this section would be 9 Numbered sections to correspond with the Table of Contents. But this isn't happening on my wiki, and it doesn't seem to be a wiki-specific option in Preferences. Can I enable automatic section numbering on my wiki, or is this a job for Phab? 13:36 13-Nov-2017
 * If your talking about the table of contents then add to the page. MacFan4000 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. My Tables of Contents are fine. (I do use TOC and in fact have custom CSS for them.) It is the section headings that are the problem. If this section were in my wiki, the number 9 would be missing from the heading. (Do you see it differently?)  14:36 13-Nov-2017
 * I know this may seem obvious but did you try removing your custom CSS that deals with TOC? &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  15:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On Meta and my own wiki I go into preferences - appearance - advanced options - auto number headings. This will number each heading on the page to correspond with the numbers in the toc. Is this what you are after? 15:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Borderman, that is exactly it and the problem is solved. I pored over Preferences but missed this. Thanks for your help, CnocBride. 15:38 13-Nov-2017
 * No problem pal, glad to help. 15:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I hate everything.  13:50 14-Nov-2017

How can I edit a private page that only users registering with a specific @domain.com email address can view?
Hi community!

Has anyone ever tried to set up a private page that only users logging in with a specific @domain.com email address can view? We have this dilemma in my organisation: there is content we want to make public, and content we want to keep classified. What are the best options? We also thought of creating a xx.public.miraheze.org and a xx.private.miraheze.org page, but we would still face the challenge of privacy for the latter... Lots of hug points to those who'll reply!
 * Welcome! Surely this won't be the last word, but a rule of thumb is that information you want kept secret should not be put on the Web in the first place.  However, pages from private wikis (except for the main page) cannot be retrieved except by registered users that you invite on.  This does not depend on their domain name but on you adding them to a list of members.   15:39 16-Nov-2017
 * There was an extension for only making a few pages private, but unfortunately is incompatible with the newer versions of MediaWiki. So yes, you should probably go for the private wiki and public wiki option. Private wikis are secure, and are only accessible by users who are added. Stewards and system administrators can also view them for technical reasons. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#FF0000">'C' ) 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With a private wiki you can also whitelist certain pages. MacFan4000 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)