Community noticeboard

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community noticeboard
This noticeboard is community discussions, generally global in nature or which relate to specific wikis or users. For requests that require Stewards', or, in a limited number of circumstances, Global Sysops', intervention, please see stewards' noticeboard. If in doubt, please try here first, and you will be directed there if the matter requires a Steward

On Community noticeboard (this page), you can:

  • Start a community discussion, generally global in nature or which relates to specific wiki(s)
  • Solicit volunteers' assistance to help maintain or write content for your wiki
  • Ask questions with both the global community and system administrators about either Miraheze or some technical aspect of MediaWiki on your wiki
  • Request changes to your wiki's local interwiki table, including change(s) to locally override one or more of the global interwiki table (located on Meta) prefix configurations

If you would like to:

To add your request, type in a concise title in the box below, then click "Add Topic".

Archives of Community noticeboard [e]   

Vote[edit | edit source]

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I have a question for you: should we have a wiki on here like the Wiki Gazetteer on FANDOM? Put your vote in the headings below! And remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. Tali64³ (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes[edit | edit source]

  1. Support Why not? This would not be a bad idea for someone looking for a specific wiki. --Furricane (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support per @Furricane: InspecterAbdel (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Strong support I strongly support this because we can find more specific wikis. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 21:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Weak support I'm not opposed to this idea, in theory, and I do think that we need to rethink Gazetteer of wikis given that we have ~3,800 current wikis (which is too large for a single page). My main concern, which I expressed in declining the wiki request, was that this may suffer from lack of maintenance and timely updates. As well, by siphoning it away from Meta, we now have yet another wiki we have to somehow promote, so that sort of defeats the purpose of a gazetteer of wikis designed to promote customers' public wikis, doesn't it? Secondarily, I honestly think a better way to go about this is to add additional functionality and data output to the automated list, Special:WikiDiscover. That said, it's a good-faith idea, in theory and if well-maintained, so that is why I am expressing some support, albeit weak. Dmehus (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Strong support I think this will help in finding wikis. Admittedly, there was once a list on Wikia, but we've dropped it. Onmp314 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Onmp314: There are still two: the Wiki Wiki and the Wiki Gazetteer. Tali64³ (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No[edit | edit source]

  1. Strong oppose I don't see the need for an entire wiki like this. We already have a page here on meta, Gazetteer of wikis. And in all honesty, a page on meta will most likely be given more notice than another external wiki that some will never visit. As such I am opposing this idea. While a good thought I don't see the need for it. I mean if you want it, go for you, but I don't think it should be a community wiki at all.
    @Universal Omega: There are 3966 wikis currently on Miraheze, too big to list on one page. An administrator could put a link to it on the main page. Tali64³ (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Tali64³: We also have Special:WikiDiscover which lists every wiki on Miraheze.
  2. Oppose Not needed.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose if there were a lot of people to add entries for wikis with short descriptions that would work for me but right now I think that the Meta gazeteer is enough and is helpful. DeeM28 (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose A wiki for this is unnecessary, Gazetteer of wikis on Meta works fine. If there was a way to automate it with Special:WikiDiscover, I might rethink it, but otherwise this would likely get really outdated long-term. K599 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose and I would like to note, wiki creations are at the sole discretion of wiki creators and global policy, and I view this as a way to circumvent a decline of mine. Thus, I also recommend a closure of this as not done. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 05:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain[edit | edit source]

I think it's a fair enough idea but there are many ways to approach it and would need lots of maintenance and would probably create some form of conflict -Bayugoon (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit | edit source]

  1. I'm currently been slowly working on a similar idea over the past month or two just documenting wikis: the Wikiverse. dibbydib 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. As a Miraheze wiki creator, when this wiki truly passes through us for approval (I have recently accidentally approved this wiki sent in by @Tali64³:, which due to the ongoing discussion and the incorrect subdomain is currently pending steward review for deletion), it is important for us to know when to approve the wiki and who will be creating it. Therefore, who will be the founding Bureaucrat of the wiki if it passes community discussion?
    @Tali64³ and Universal Omega:: I would be the founder. Tali64³ (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Tali64³: When having community discussions like these, who will be the founder is among what should be discussed. I believe who should be the founder should be among what is discussed here. Thanks!
  3. Relisting for another couple of weeks. Dmehus (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Relisting for another several weeks. Dmehus (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A new wiki for the website's community[edit | edit source]

The Miraheze Community Wiki is a wiki for the community so people can get to know each other and welcome each other. I know Meta does that, but I think we need a wiki for that stuff.

Support[edit | edit source]

  1. Strong support I think we need a wiki for this kind of thing InspecterAbdel (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Weak support but not per any of the above or below, but because community noticeboard has become a catch-all for technical support questions, community discussions, and really anything. The organization is weak, and we could use a community wiki. I have no objections to it, but the main reason for my oppose weak support here is because the purpose is somewhat vague and unclear. I appreciate @InspecterAbdel: bringing this for a community discussion, though, and, since this wiki was simultaneously submitted for approval and created already, I think we should probably shift this wiki towards defining a clear purpose and terms of reference for its existence and the parameters by which the local bureaucrats can be removed (via Community noticeboard) here on Meta. Dmehus (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Amended. Moved from weak oppose to weak support Dmehus (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support I think we should have one since fandom has one. Plus it's subdomain is valuable too. AppleCrunchy (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Abstain[edit | edit source]

  1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain I really like to have a community wiki for new users to gather, although we have a Community noticeboard. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 17:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose[edit | edit source]

  1. Oppose. No, we don't need such a wiki. This page ("community noticeboard") is exactly for this kind of thing. I don't want to have to check both this page and a dedicated wiki to find out what is happening on the wiki farm, nor learn how such a wiki is organized. Spıke (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Spike. There is already not enough engagement and usage on Meta, so another wiki is really not what we need. We should focus on Meta. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose. We DO NOT need a community wiki is needed at this time. We already have this page, the community noticeboard, and Requests for Permissions, requests for global rights and requests for stewardship. It seems that it would serve the same service as as most of this meta wiki, and I just see no possible usage for this. I also agree with the comments that Spike has made about having to go back and forth between meta and a community wiki. Sorry, it is just not going to work. --Furricane (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Furricane: I'm hoping you'll consider amending your !vote, per my comments above, as I really don't think @InspecterAbdel:'s goal was for this wiki to replace Meta. The problem with this request is that (a) the wiki shouldn't have been created without a community discussion (not, technically, a requirement, as far as I'm aware, but good practice) and (b) it should've had a clearer purpose, scope, and defined parameters, as we are doing with Dev Wiki and have done with Template Wiki and Miraheze Commons in the past. No community proposals or discussions, or even drafts of such proposals, would've occurred on this wiki. Rather, as I saw it (though vague and unclear), this wiki was meant to be a user collaboration and social connection wiki that would've actually sought to deepen community participation. Participation in this community wiki would've been completely voluntary and not participating would not have meant the user would "miss out" on important community discussions, as I don't think that was ever the intent behind @InspecterAbdel:'s good-faith proposal. Dmehus (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Not needed.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I do not think another wiki is necessary for the community because for me Meta is the wiki for the community. DeeM28 (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose This is unnecessary, Meta already serves essentially the same purpose, and there's not really enough of that kind of "community" activity to need a separate wiki. K599 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. Strong oppose After reading the first two oppose votes I agree with those users. We should try to engage the community on Meta and we can be doing community oriented activities here. Тишина (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Strong oppose I agree that the noticeboard is enough and if there was a whole wiki about the community it would be under used and it would require moving around instead of just looking at this one page Bayugoon (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments[edit | edit source]

  • I think the subject is not whether we need a community wiki or not, as we already have a community-centric wiki, but whether we need a miraheze-sanctioned community wiki.I think CN is sufficient, but it seems unusual for a topic to be set up for communication purposes, so someone may need to give an example.I found an image on showing the stroke order of my name, so it might be a good idea to post it, but it takes courage to be the first one.--松•Matsu (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist to delay archiving. I will be posting an updated proposal on next steps in the next several days. Dmehus (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist to delay archiving. I will be posting an updated proposal on next steps in the next several days. Dmehus (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist to delay archiving. I will be posting an updated proposal on next steps in the next several days. Dmehus (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A community Developers wiki[edit | edit source]

I have a proposition for the Miraheze community. For a while now I have been debating whether or not to create a developers wiki for Miraheze. Unlike the template wiki, this wiki will include CSS and JS scripts that anyone can import using mw.loader.load(), it will allow anyone who wants it to use scripts built by the community in their own wikis and/or in their own personal global or local JavaScript or CSS files. After consulting with @Dmehus: on Discord, I decided to get the communities feedback and/or support on this idea, therefore what does the Miraheze community think of this idea?

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Yeah, though I don't think it's required to have a community discussion in this case, since it's going to be a community wiki for shared CSS and JavaScript files, among other things potentially, I thought it would be a good practice to have the discussion, especially if it proposes to use the name "Miraheze." Plus, I think it would be helpful for the community to (a) define the initial scope and purpose and (b) establish the founding bureaucrats for the wiki. From there, the local community can help to establish its local policies and further refine its purpose. In general terms, I support this as a community wiki as I think it is sufficiently different than the Template and Miraheze Bots + Tools wikis. I also think it could be useful at reducing the page load times of community-imported and -maintained user scripts, as opposed to always loading them from English Wikipedia and other wikis. Dmehus (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: yes, some of that is part of my initial thoughts for the reasoning of the wiki. As for using the name Miraheze in it, I think it should be called Miraheze Developers Wiki or something similar. As for bureaucrats of the wiki, any candidate recommendations? And I think a community discussion for this is a good idea. It gives the community a way to give input, and their own unique ideas in it as well.
  • Strong support As proposer I support this, but also because I know JS and CSS pretty well, and would love to have a wiki like this for the Miraheze community.
  • Support This is a great idea for a new wiki. I think that by doing this, lots of new coding things could be enabled, including possibly global modules and gadgets. Great suggestion. I also have no concerns for this proposal. --Furricane (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Furricane: yes, I do believe that a wiki like this could be greatly beneficial in the long run, or at least I hope it can be.
  • Strong support I support this idea because not everyone can do custom CSS and (or) custom JS. Onmp314 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds like a good idea for having a central place to import JS and CSS. K599 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. Dmehus (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good. Waldo (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support would be a nice place to ask questions with in that area Bayugoon (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Potential rename and/or expanded scope of Dev Wiki[edit | edit source]

@Universal Omega: asked me a few days, or perhaps a week, ago if I had posted in this discussion thread about the potential renaming and expanded scope for Dev Wiki yet. Other tasks took priority, but seeing as this thread was due to be archived in the next day or so, I wanted to get this done. So, I'm going to {{ping}} those that participated above and those who participated in the discussion on potential name ideas/expanded scope on Discord.

So, the question is...given that the dev subdomain implies broader usage by and for developers beyond just CSS and JavaScript scripts, @Universal Omega, Void, Lakelimbo, NDKilla, Reception123, and Furricane: and I (did I forget anyone, @Universal Omega:?) basically toyed around with a number of potential new names and subdomains, the top three of which is identified below:

  1. Retain dev and expand the scope, or allow the community, via a future community noticeboard discussion to expand the scope at some point in the future;
  2. Rename subdomain to repo, which would be roughly in line with the current purpose and scope, but open to possibilities later (again, the community would retain the right modify the scope via a community noticeboard discussion); or,
  3. Rename subdomain to cssjs, with a narrow scope; limits us in the future, but entirely accurate; it's not too bad, as we could easily create a separate dev later, though we should reserve that subdomain in the blacklist)

Since @RhinosF1: didn't participate in the Discord discussion and since this doesn't require any advanced rights to close, I nominate him to assess the consensus and close this discussion in a week or two. --Dmehus (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of RhinosF1 as closer[edit | edit source]

@RhinosF1:, please indicate if you would be willing to close this discussion after 1-2 weeks (depending on the weather-related impacts to U.S. eastern seaboard residents).

Additionally, can I get a seconder to second this nomination? (Thought we could probably safely skip a full vote on nominating an uninvolved closer.)

Voting and Vote Tabulation Instructions[edit | edit source]

You are encouraged to express first and second choices in your !vote. Please do so by indicating, in your !vote for each proposal, whether it is your first or second choice. If no proposal achieves more than 50% of the valid !votes cast, the proposal with the least number of first choice !votes will be dropped, and those users' second choices will then be allocated accordingly, and the results retabulated in a second count.

Proposal 1: dev[edit | edit source]

Support[edit | edit source]

  1. Support
  2. Support as first choice, since the community remains overall authority over this wiki in terms of its bureaucrat removal (as may be required) and in terms of redefining, or broadening, its scope. Dmehus (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support I think there is no need to rename. Onmp314 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support Looks nice, and is easy to understand. K599 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose[edit | edit source]

Neutral/Abstain[edit | edit source]

This is arguably kind of useless, in this case, since the !votes won't be counted, but I'll nonetheless include it.

Proposal 2: repo[edit | edit source]

Support[edit | edit source]

Oppose[edit | edit source]

Neutral/Abstain[edit | edit source]

This is arguably kind of useless, in this case, since the !votes won't be counted, but I'll nonetheless include it.

  1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like this idea as well, but it feels like it has other non-computer science-related use cases (i.e., for an archival- or museum-type wiki). Dmehus (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3: cssjs[edit | edit source]

Support[edit | edit source]

Oppose[edit | edit source]

Neutral/Abstain[edit | edit source]

This is arguably kind of useless, in this case, since the !votes won't be counted, but I'll nonetheless include it.

  1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I also liked @NDKilla:'s idea, as it is the most specific and clearly defines this wiki's current purpose, but, at the same time, it really does restrict a future broadening of this wiki's scope to include a broader array of wiki developer resources, for which the community retains the absolute authority to redefine this wiki's purpose via community noticeboard. Dmehus (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. It's also important to point out that, per the approved wiki request, this is a community wiki and the community maintains overall supremacy over this wiki (i.e., its scope, bureaucrats, etc.).
  2. Everyone agreed to use @Lakelimbo:'s great logo for Dev Wiki.

MediaWiki Version 1.35 is displaying ogg files differently[edit | edit source]

Hi, I am using extension TimedMediaHandler for displaying ogg files in my Wiki and was perfectly satisfied with the way it was working. With the new MediaWiki version 1.35 things have changed. When I click on the play button a new window pops and the rest of the window is locked check out here. Before the upgrade I could even play more than one ogg files in one window simultaneously. Is this a bug or a feature, can I change this behaviour? Thank you for your support Lily (Manuela) (Lilypond Wiki · talk and I will listen · my little garden ) 09:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisting until a system administrator has had a chance to review this. Dmehus (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Issues with collapsible lists[edit | edit source]

Ever since the update, collapsible lists (Template:Collapsible list) no longer work. I have tried importing the template from the wiki and even that does not solve the issue. OIMGov (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@OIMGov: Hi. I'm really sorry for the late answer, could you please link us to a page where it's not working? Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

DB[edit | edit source]


I want to move wiki, miraheze server to own server.

So, can I download or get wiki's database?

Thanks. Gomdoli (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gomdoli: While we're sorry to see you leave in terms of your wiki, you can download a complete dump of your wiki's public XML (does not include suppressed revisions, private user data, non-public IP data, and things like that) and an archive of all your images uploaded to your wiki. You can do this in Special:DataDump. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I asked Discord server, I found; Thanks. Gomdoli (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Reduced Activity[edit | edit source]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to let the community know that my activity will be greatly reduced at the moment following a possible case of Covid-19 and the impact it has had on me. I hope to editing back at full capacity once myself and everyone at home are feeling better.

Thanks,  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (WB) 10:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope you get well soon. R4356th (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (WB) 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@RhinosF1: I'll message you privately, but if you've been affected by COVID-19 as well, I echo those sentiments expressed by R4356th completely. Also, regarding your user talk page, if you'd like, I'd be happy to redirect it to my user talk page, rather than your user page, as the most active user on Meta Wiki, so users can still ask any questions. Dmehus (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks and you can always be free to wiki gnome around my user and user talk pages. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (WB) 19:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

About deleting user groups[edit | edit source]

I want to delete some user groups, what should I do?--虎之介 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@虎之介: First, thank you for your question, which I've moved procedurally from stewards' noticeboard to here, where it is now in scope. Second, to answer your question, please go into Special:ManageWiki/permissions (on your wiki), select the group you wish to delete, unselect all assigned user rights, then proceed to the "submit" tab. Check the box that says "delete this group," and enter an optional log summary for your wiki's ManageWiki log that states what you're doing and why, mainly for audit purposes. After you hit submit, it will be deleted. Repeat the process for any other group(s) you wish to delete. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Unsure about user merge policies[edit | edit source]

... also because I didn't find any. Long story short: when I moved "my" wiki from Fandom to Miraheze I was told users could get back their accounts just by creating a new one and them merging it with the old one. In fact that's how it worked until recently, when my request to merge users wasn't really answered, and now I don't know what to tell users who are still waiting to get their accounts back. So, what changed? How does it work now? --Wedhro (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wedhro: It wasn't really answered because it's generally really done, most likely, and also because we don't have any formal policies on the matter. It isn't done, mainly for technical reasons, as the process to merge two user accounts into one is a time-consuming and painstaking process, requiring the steward to locally merge each attached wiki account. This is because there's an upstream Wikimedia task related to globally merging user accounts not being "scalable" that is stalled and unlikely to proceed. Your best bet is to advise users to disclose their alternate accounts on their global user page and not access wikis where locally blocked with their alternate accounts, in compliance with user accounts policy. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but it doesn't. One of the biggest fears of leaving Fandom for Miraheze was losing all edits and people identities in general, but we were assured there was a way to prevent that. I didn't know it was hard to implement but still, without that we might have chosen a different host. It's not trivial as it might seem. I'm not sure what "disclose their alternate accounts" means because they can't access the account they made while on Fandom, only the temporary ones they were told to create in order to proceed with the merge, as per instruction received by... maybe Void, not sure about that. For example, user "Wedhro" from Fandom wants to get back its account here on Miraheze, and I tell him to create user "Wedhro temp" or something; now what? --Wedhro (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wedhro: I'm confused why your Fandom accounts would come into the picture on Miraheze. Did you, and others, not create the same username on Miraheze? If so, then you can request a password reset on those account(s), and use them. If not and someone else registered them, we have had one or two username usurpation cases, and generally this involves posting a notice on the requested username's user talk page, waiting thirty (30) calendar days, and if no objection is received and the user is largely inactive, then usurpation may be granted and the user renamed, allowing that username to be reregistered again. Alternatively, while not encouraged, you could also manually edit the XML file of your wiki(s) to update to your Miraheze username, which should provide proper attribution. System administrators could then reimport it onto your wiki. Dmehus (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
One big detail I didn't mention: we didn't start a new wiki, we imported one. A big one, with thousand of users. When the wiki was imported here users were also imported, but obviously not their passwords. The result is people now can't sign in with their original usernames because they already exist (that includes potential usurpers: nobody can claim those accounts). We need a quick solution for that because waiting for 30 days for a maybe will just discourage people from coming back, and we already lost a big chunk of the user base coming here after being assured getting back accounts wouldn't have been an issue. It's a huge, huge bummer. Isn't there a quick way to make old, inactive accounts (we're talking about 2+ years of inactivity here) available again? Wedhro (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories out of sync[edit | edit source]

Hello! Due to some issues lately involving the Nuke extension command, at least I believe that to be the culprit, one of our categories on the MLP wiki has went out of sync. It displays the pages in the category at over 1,104 but according t AWB, the actual count is only 611. The count does go up and down depending on if pages are deleted or created, but is still about 500 more then what it should be. Anyone know how to fix this?--Amelia (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Amelia: I've ran a maintenance script that recounts the number of pages in a category, and this has now been  fixed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 08:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Reception123: Thanks a bunch!--Amelia (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Extension[edit | edit source]


I want to make a request form, like "Special:RequestWiki", so I need to install the extension.

So I have a question.

What is that extension name?

Thanks, Gomdoli (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC) This? Gomdoli (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gomdoli: RequestWiki is part of CreateWiki. IncidentReporting is a separate extension, but you could possibly use some of that code for the purposes of developing a new extension, sure, I don't see why not. Dmehus (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reply. I understand. (But I can't develop another extension. Because I don't know how to.) Gomdoli (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

weird skin[edit | edit source]


So I was making some edits and then the wiki got a weird skin. Why is it not the mobile skin?

It also happened on meta wiki. Oof •• Fair0002 • Bureaucrat and Administrator of Crazybloxian Empire Wiki 03:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Me too. Not active minerva skin now. Gomdoli (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Fair0002 and Gomdoli: I apologize for the issue. It has now been solved. See T6512

I cannot upload files to my Kubu Wiki[edit | edit source]

Probably the problem is sitting in front of the computer. I have checked all my settings and could not figure out why all upload attempts end with an error message: Die Sperrdatei für „mwstore://local-backend/local-public/0/00/Yazz_logo.ico“ konnte nicht geöffnet werden. Stelle sicher, dass dein Hochladerepositorium korrekt konfiguriert ist und dein Webserver eine Berechtigung zum Beschreiben dieses Repositoriums hat. Siehe$wgUploadDirectory für weitere Informationen. Thanks for support, LilyLilyu - smile.svg (Lilypond Wiki · talk to me · little garden · my wiki of everything) 09:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lily: First, thank you for raising this issue and technical question. Second, I have procedurally moved it from stewards' noticeboard to community noticeboard where it is now in scope. Third, immediately I wondered if *.ico was a managewiki-restricted file type, requiring a Phabricator task to have enabled on your wiki. Looking at Special:ManageWiki/settings, that is not the case, as the file type is indeed enabled by default. So, I'm not sure the issue and will {{ping}} @Reception123, Universal Omega, and Paladox:, three system administrators and at least one of whom should be able to help you out. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: Thank you for your help. Once again I was not able to chose the right board, sorry. I uploaded the files to a different wiki what worked fine. It seems that favicon cannot be included from webspace of a different wiki, logo works that way. Uploading png to kubu did not work either, greetings LilyLilyu - smile.svg (Lilypond Wiki · talk to me · little garden · my wiki of everything) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add a link to Donate in the footer of all wikis[edit | edit source]

Currently, there is no indication to readers of wikis that they can donate to Miraheze. I think it would help if a link to Donate is added to the footer of all wikis, to get people aware that they can donate and help Miraheze with funds. K599 (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@K599: I personally wouldn't mind this, and would suggest a little PayPal donation graphic be inserted to the immediate right of the Miraheze donation graphic. I think an image, rather than a text link, would be better. We could probably implement this fairly non-controversially without a full proposal or anything, and just link to this discussion in the GitHub pull request. Dmehus (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus Personally, I'd prefer just a text link, as I feel like some people might find a graphic to be too distracting. In addition, donations can be done through either PayPal or GitHub sponsors, so I don't think a graphic representing only one of those would work. K599 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@K599: That's true that donations can be made through GitHub sponsors, though commonly PayPal does provide a donation graphic that is used to link to an organization's donation page that includes PayPal as only one of several donation options. Also, while MirahezeMagic interface messages control the footer links, I'm not sure how easy it is to add an additional link to that, so it's possible a footer icon may be the easier option (though we don't have to necessarily use a PayPal graphic). At the same time, I feel like a text link would be easily lost and less helpful than originally envisioned. And, as always, wikis would have the option of requesting the donation graphic be removed from their footer icons (some wikis I've noticed don't even display the Miraheze icon, which, to be honest, I don't quite get). If my wiki was hosted for free by Miraheze, I would proudly display the Miraheze graphic. Dmehus (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus I'm kind of unsure about adding another footer icon, since four icons kind of feels like a lot to me. Also, a text link wouldn't really be hard from what I know, it can just be added with this hook, which is also how the "Terms of Use" link is added. K599 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@K599: Yeah, I guess that's true. I'm not sure how it effective it may end up being, but on the other hand, a text link is even less potentially controversial, no discussion at all is likely needed, so the fact we have this discussion with you and I both supporting it is all that much better. Plus, I believe we're planning a fundraiser in the new year, which may involve a central notice banner for a short period, so those efforts combined should be helpful. Dmehus (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What do I add to the "Interwiki prefix"?[edit | edit source]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I am trying to move my Fandom wikia over to here on Miraheze. I have the .xml file, but as I was uploading, it asked for an "Interwiki prefix" I looked high and low for what to place in the box and subsequently began adding all sorts of recommended words, phrases, and codes; but nothing seems to be working and it only gives me the message "Import failed: Expected <mediawiki> tag, got". Is there something I am doing wrong? What should I be putting in there in order to to move my Fandom wikia over to here on Miraheze??? HarmonTower805 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@HarmonTower805: Thank you for question, which I have procedurally moved from stewards' noticeboard to community noticeboard, where it is now notionally more in scope. In this case, the Special:Import page is looking for the interwiki table prefix that exists, either from the global interwiki table on Meta or any local interwiki table prefixes you've requested. You just need to make sure it matches exactly. So for Fandom, it would be wikia. This is for file upload XML imports, though. For transwiki imports, there is also a Phabricator task that is required to add the prefix to your wiki's $wgImportSources variable, but that's not required in this case. If your wiki has a lot of pages and revisions, though, you should file a Phabricator task and have system administrators do the import for you, as you will invariably time out. Dmehus (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The XML file you're importing is broken. Dmehus is correct in that you should use that Interwiki code but the error has nothing to with Interwiki codes. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (WB) 19:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Interwiki admin[edit | edit source]

I saw interwiki admin but I don't know what does this group work? I think is group's can access Special:Interwiki but uncertain. Who tell me please. Gomdoli (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gomdoli: Yes, interwiki administrators (the global group) can edit Special:Interwiki on any Miraheze wiki upon request. You can see them in Special:GlobalUsers on your wiki, as a quick reference. They only can't edit the global interwiki table, which remains restricted to Meta administrators and stewards. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I have a question about interwiki administrators not being able to edit the global interwiki table. Is there a reason why they are not able to, but local Meta administrators are able to edit the table that affects all wikis? I think that it would make more sense if the global group also had control of the interwiki table that affects all Miraheze wikis. DeeM28 (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@DeeM28: Thank you for the question. While not completely certain, I suspect the reason the global interwiki table (on Meta) is restricted to Meta administrators is mainly a historical anecdote, formed from conventions that normalized over time and because the global interwiki table predates the formation of the global interwiki administrators global group. The most recent interwiki administration reform RfC, intentionally or unintentionally, actually codified into policy that it is Meta administrators' responsibility. As to interwiki administrators editing this instead, in fact actually, this is among the first RfCs I plan to propose in the next couple of weeks actually. If you're interested in reviewing my draft (mostly just a summary of the proposals so far), you can see User:Dmehus/Omnibus RfC on changes to interwiki administrators and administration, in which, among other things, one of the proposals will be to restrict administration to stewards and interwiki administrators, whilst another will be to allow non-interwiki administrator/steward Meta administrators to administer the global interwiki table. As well, I'd also like to have a requirement to have a global discussion on this noticeboard for all new global interwiki table additions. Finally, there is also a proposal to move the global interwiki table to Loginwiki, allowing Meta to have a local interwiki table, or keep it on Meta. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your very complete answer. I have read the proposed RfC, and I will be looking forward to participating in the discussion when you decide to submit it as an RfC. DeeM28 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)