Community noticeboard

WHEN I TRY TO CHANGE THE WIKI ICON THE SETTINGS RESET
WHEN I TRY TO CHANGE THE ICON (OR ANY OTHER SETTINGS) FOR MY WIKI, ONCE I SAVE THE SETTINGS AND RELOAD THE PAGE, THEY RESET :( Ghostie222 (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Chill out, dude. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IM NOT YELLING ITS JUST HOW I TYPE! :] /G Ghostie222 (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First, all-caps equals yelling, so you are choosing to yell. Second, did you purge the page so that it would pick up the new settings, or just reload the old page from the wiki cache? --Robkelk (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Local interwiki administrator amendment proposal

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Proposal successful as written. John (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason why interwiki administrators exist is because there is a risk that if an untrustworthy or rogue user has access to the interwiki table, they can insert malicious links and make it seem like an innocent wikilink and a user could then click on it and be directed to the malicious website. With the current system, on wikis with few users a single support is all that is needed for someone to be elected as local IW which undermines the whole idea of it being a trustworthy user. Therefore, I propose the following one issue amendment as allowed by the RfC policy: Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On wikis with less than active users (5 edits in the last 30 days), local interwiki administrators cannot be elected. Global interwiki administrators handle all requests.

Support

 * 1)  per above. The whole idea of having to elect a local interwiki administrator doesn't make sense if only one user can participate in the election and make it successful. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I strongly support this as the current process is too lax in this regard. As I mentioned in my comment to an oppose vote, it's easy to rack 500 local edits or even 1,000 local edits through various ways. CommentStreams logs a new edit whenever you comment or edit a comment, Translate logs one to two edits every time you translate a new unit (not a page, but instead a translation unit which may be as small as a word as a big as a paragraph), and more. Using the last method I mentioned, I could probably rack up a thousand edits in a day if I wanted to. The whole reason that interwiki isn't bundled into the default bureaucrat group is to add a safeguard against a malicious actor adding a malicious link into the interwiki table. The current process essentially allows for this safeguard to be bypassed in essence as anyone can basically be named local interwiki-admin with little to no votes in a small community. It would be best if local interwiki-admins can be named only once the community is big enough for meaningful local elections. A local election in a small wiki is merely a spectacle, a show at this point, it has no real substance if no one's going to vote in the end and the user will likely end up winning. Stewards also don't vet local candidates for competency or for knowledge of the policy, etc., while global Interwiki administrators are scrutinized for their knowledge of policy, competence, and more. For this reason, I think it's best to restrict the ability elect interwiki-admins until a community is big enough. A user can request a global IWA or Steward add a new entry into the table easily and there's no real big downside to this.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the above. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  It has been demonstrated by a previous Request for Comment in which I had the pleasure to participate that there are two opposing takes about editing interwiki links: that there is not as much danger to it as suggested or on the contrary that it is easy for local staff to insert dangerous links. These are legitimate questions but this is a single proposal and this is not what is at stake here. It is evident that in the RfC that I cite above the purpose of Proposal 5 was to permit local interwiki administrators if they are trusted by the local community. I believe that it is nonsensical that as is suggested above a single vote is all that a user requires under the current rules to become interwiki administrator. It would be very simple for that user to create an undetected secondary account or to even ask an acquitance to vote for him or her and would be against the whole current interwiki administrator framework which requires trusted users. In conclusion as part of this framework the current status quo does not make sense. Some may point to the fact that there is an edit requirement. My answer to that is that just because someone has made a lot of edits that does not mean that they would not be willing to insert a dangerous link knowing that no one would find out. There is also the fact that a lot of minor edits can be done or even automatic edits. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)   (1) A new wiki could conceivably avoid interwikis entirely.  (2) A new wiki is almost always small; and with luck, grows to many active users.  (3) The danger of interwikis, to silently divert readers to websites they may regard as malicious (and to send you somewhere when you thought you were going somewhere else), is significant.  So I agree with defaulting wikis to global interwiki management.  Rather than debate what a good threshold is for "active enough", I suggest that Admins themselves petition global Admins to "bring home" the interwiki management task.   18:57 5-Sep-2022
 * 7)  Nothing much to say, DeeM28 and Agent Isai have reasoned from my point of view. --   Joseph  TB  CT  CA   11:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  I agree with Agent Isai… Executive2 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  Per Agent Isai.-- 1108-Kiju /▶talk  10:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  The current requirement (1000 global edits/500 local edits) for applying for a local interwiki administrator is already sufficient as (i) most users with malicious intent won’t bother to reach such a requirement; (ii) as of now I cannot see an urgent need for this, as I see there is very little requests for local IAs. When reviewing the request, stewards takes responsibility in reviewing the candidates’ contributions, as well as testing their competence to determine whether the links are malicious, and can reasonably decline a request (this is same will other local elections). Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 03:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That really isn't the case with the local elections process though. Stewards do not check or review the "competence" of a user or their contributions, it's sort of a "oh, an election, okay" type process. It doesn't make sense to allow interwiki-admin on small wikis as 500 local edits can be achieved easily using many ways (for example, using the Translate extension to "translate" an article. Each new translation counts as an edit; or by using a bot, etc.). The reason that  isn't bundled with bureaucrat as is the case on vanilla MediaWiki is to allow for a safeguard against adding malicious links into the table and passing them off as plain looking links. If a user can achieve 500 contributions and get a friend to vote (or, if no one even votes, no one) in an election, that basically bypasses this safeguard, the right might as well be bundled into the bureaucrat group. It's not fair to say someone was "elected" when in reality, no one was around to really vote on the proposal or a friend voted in the proposal and that's it. That process is way too lax and can easily be abused. I think global interwiki admins or Stewards can handle requests just fine, there's no issue there really. If a wiki grows above this size, local interwiki administrators can be voted in as needed.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would you say that it might as well be added with bureaucrat? Why would someone spend time to add a malicious link after getting 500 edits just to be blocked/locked? Interwiki isn't to look like a wikilink, it's to allow for easier linking to websites. If you wanted to make it look like a wikilink, you could just use . --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  It'll be helpful to add IW links without a need of another Interwiki Administrators, where completion can take well over a day, as opposed to requesting the IA right. With nobody there locally, nobody else can really vote, so in my opinion, if it's advertised for a good amount of time on the site notice, that should be good enough. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 01:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns in regard to the turnaround time for the group then why not consider running for it? Complaining doesn't equal anything but action does. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 01:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) per above

Support

 * 1)  5 users seems to be the right threashold, as under that it seems unlikely that a proper consensus can be formed as to whether someone is fit to be IW. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  This limit appears to be reasonable and we do not want to unfairly prevent local interwiki administrators from operating on wikis which have some level of community as opposed to the single vote example given above. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  To an extent. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Between 5-10 active users seems like a decent community size that can form consensus about IWs. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per vote above. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

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

Sortable Table - Custom Order?
I am working on a large chart of fictional characters' birthdays. One of the columns I have is a field to input their zodiac sign. When I click to sort by zodiac, however, it goes alphabetically. This is a feature I can totally live without, but just in case- is there anything I can do to make it sort in the order of the zodiac instead? I have no idea if a custom value heirarchy is supported by default without crazy extension wizardry etc, but would 'put transparent ordering numbers in front of all the zodiac names' or something work lol Chantolove (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiMedia has a help page but no option. I use  numbering the zodiacs from 1 to 12. As you are creating a long chart you could create a template for each zodiac to quickly add

Template:Aries data-sort-value="1"| Aries
 * PercyUK (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * worked perfectly!! tysmsmsm :] Chantolove (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the reception wikis shutdown on Miraheze.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Per Agent Isai's closure of the RfC that was copied from here. There is no need to undermine the local community vote with a global vote as this time. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed on the Qualitipedia Request For Comments having mostly votes supporting the shutdown of the wikis, but do you guys also support this or not? Let me know in the Support, Oppose, and Abstain votes below. Nidoking (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sure they are well aware of the RfC on Qualitipedia Meta. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't believe many of them that use the wikis have not seen it at all yet. So maybe some people from here, could vote. Nidoking (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that if there was really to be a vote about the Reception wikis this should be an RfC and not merely a Community Noticeboard thread. Either way, I think waiting for the outcome of the current QP RfC is preferable Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Support
ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

KumihoWolffey (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose
Considering that the wikis may get lost to time, and the wikis have not became 10 years old in time for it's anniversary. Nidoking (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For the same reasons I gave on the actual RfC on Qualitipedia. Tali64³ (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I'm pretty much abstaining, for pretty obvious reasons. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


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

Wiki Limit
Hi, I'm wondering — is there a limit to how many wikis one can register? Thank you! JamestheGreat (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, though there is no limits on how many wikis you can request, you should have a clear scope of your wiki before you request one, and it should not violate the Content Policy. Additionally, if you have previously requested too much wikis that are unused, or request excess wikis with the same scope, it will not be tolerated. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 02:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Content Policy reform draft
Hi everyone,

Please note that myself and Agent Isai have drafted an RfC in order to reform the current Content Policy. We'd appreciate any feedback or comments about any of the proposals before opening it to voting. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How to add a read only user to a wiki?
A wiki might want to include a read only user, for example for a user to access but not be able to edit a private wiki. Answering my own question: The easiest way to do this is to to do a sitewide block of the user. Then that user will still be able to read the wiki but will no longer be able to edit. Rob Kam (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * How about making another user group with the read right, but not the edit right? Tali64³ (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can also revoke edit rights from users who aren't supposed to edit (ex. (everyone), Users, Members), and then create another right with the permission to view and edit. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

tag not working
Hello. Im new to miraheze and i has bug thay literally kills the code. literally dont work and displayed as plain text. Maybe i need any extension? I cant give screenshot because it block miraheze! Please help me! Максим Фединов (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If you moved over from Fandom then you have to enable the DummyFandoomMainpageTags extension at Special:ManageWiki/extensions -> Parser hooks. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Many tags doesnt working
Hello what extensions i need for working tags, , , , , , ? Thanks in advance User:Obossum721 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2022 (MSK)
 * Portable Infobox - PercyUK (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for help, but it doesnt work Obossum721 (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * it's called PortableInfobox, it should be in "Parser hooks" tab. Bear in mind that such changes might take 5-10 minutes to actually start working, or you can manually purge pages to see them ("Purge" button is near "Edit", "History", etc). KatozzKita (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Extension was enabled at 9:39 (GMT+3), but 5 hours have already passed and nothing has changed, cache has been cleared 6 times Obossum721 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a translation issue. It is expecting wording to be in Russian but is English OR expecting wording to be in English but is Russian. I have created mh:donpolandballwiki:%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:Stranosphere and is working. - PercyUK (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was bag with tabing in end of template. How i can add image to infobox? Obossum721 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Problems with templates
Hi. A template with a category in ( https://polandballru.miraheze.org/wiki/Шаблон:Stub ) works correctly, but in a template without a category ( https://polandballru.miraheze.org/wiki/Шаблон:Копипаста )  appears below the main block ( https://polandballru.miraheze.org/wiki/Токугава ). What's the problem? Rairakkumee (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair dealing
I think there need to be a page on fair dealing because there's a new notice that notifies that in UK (Miraheze is based in said country), the country goes by fair dealing whereas for Americans like me we're used to fair use. From what I've gathered in this Wikipedia article, fair dealing applies to non-commercial study and research, though it has a limited application to things such as software & has to show how it applies. I run several video game-related wikis that use a lot of images that would, under U.S. law, qualify as fair use & need them to show how various character artwork, game screenshots, sprites, and so forth look like. My personal guess is that uploading media without caption or context is a violation of fair dealing, although I always strive to do add them for proper documentation.

Does anyone have any input on this? I feel there needs to be a user-friendly list of examples of what is allowed and what is not allowed. I think I'm okay, but a fair dealing page here would help minimize the risk of violating fair dealing, especially at the risk of wiki closure. Bawitdaba (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is something that should be included in a primer about how UK copyright law applies to Miraheze, in my opinion. "Fair Dealing" in the UK is different from "Fair Dealing" in Canada or "Fair Use" in the USA, so having a quick explanation and a short list of common cases would be useful. --Robkelk (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes -- I have stated to others before that I have set up U.S. fair use templates on my wiki before, although I've manually readded the UK fair dealing in my custom MediaWiki:Uploadtext notices, so there would be a bit of conflict.
 * I have wondered if the wikis I run recognize U.S. fair use while acknowledging that the host itself recognizes UK fair dealing due to being hosted within the UK, meaning that there cannot be conflict between the two & that fair dealing overrides fair use due to, again, where the location is hosted. If this is allowed I'd update the MediaWiki:Uploadtext notices accordingly. Perhaps I'd add that extra notice in Project:Copyrights because legal people are not likely to check Special:Upload Bawitdaba (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is quite complex since the UK only has case law about fair dealing but no statutory/clear definition of what it is. The best guide can be found on the UK Government webiste. While it may sound very vague it seems the main question is really just whether the use of the file in such a way is fair. While this isn't a legal opinion, I'd probably guess it can't be too far from the US definition of fair use (even though it is probably a bit stricter). Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Would I be allowed to use U.S. fair use licensing templates on my wikis? I just ask because it would take all day for me to replace all of it to say "fair dealing." I can say in Project:Copyrights, MediaWiki:Uploadtext that although copyrighted files recognized under fair use, it cannot conflict with fair dealing due to Miraheze being based in the UK. Bawitdaba (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)