Remove deprecated tags <source> on protected pages

I am trying to create a new page but i get a grumpy cat

I tried to create Map extensions with a comparison table about the software found in Category:Map extensions but I just get MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-wrongwiki, which currently says:

This site is for documenting the MediaWiki software. It is not the wiki that you set up for your class, workplace, or personal use, nor is it Wikipedia. Think this is an error? Ask at Project:Village pump.

While I find the grumpy cat amusing, it's also quite unwelcoming. push-f (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Creating pages in the main space is limited for new users. Try creating it as a subpage of your user page and then moving it. Also, note that there's already a redirect page "Maps extension" so creating "Map extensions" might not be the best name---something like "Map extensions comparison" or "Comparison of map extensions" might be better. Clump (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think their issue was with the validity of the message, but with its presentation/tone instead. Which I definitely can agree with — there's no need for the message to be so condescending and, well, grumpy. Waldyrious (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :) Maybe the error message should say something like: Hey, editing the main namespace is limited for new users. And maybe don't show a grumpy cat to new users trying to improve the wiki. push-f (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I've updated MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-wrongwiki with those good suggestions. –Quiddity (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Reporting problematic translations

VisualEditor/Portal/eml: I wonder why spend time and effort to translate, update and manage.....

article like the one above in a local dialect, while the same population (about 5 ML) speak the official language of the country, spoken by about 60 ML of people.

It would be a nice and inclusive initiative if EML is the only language spoken, but......

Last but not least, looking at history of those pages.......

What do you think about this topic? GpieroMW (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Help:TemplateData

'XTools' on the Special:Contributions

Hi there! I've noticed that the XTools on the Special:Contributions doesn't work for me: on XTools (from this wiki) it shows "The requested user does not exist" notice. I figured out that my username has a space which is replaced by "+" sign in the link. It is like this:

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/www.mediawiki.org/Pacha+Tchernof

Other links on the footer of the Special:Contributions page have "_" symbol instead of "+". And if you replace first by second, you'll notice that the link above would work for you.

Could someone fix it please? I have no idea where it could be done and I'm doubting that I have permissions for that.

Thanks! Pacha Tchernof (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Done by adding anchorencode Shirayuki (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shirayuki, thank you so much! I am curios to ask: is there an easy way to find the wiki code (in a page/template) when there is no "Edit" or "View source" button on the top of the page? Pacha Tchernof (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pacha Tchernof I glanced at your other recent edits, and I think you might be looking for the Qqx trick. E.g. Special:contribs/...?uselang=qqx which shows at the very bottom of the page (sp-contributions-footer: Pacha Tchernof) which is the clue that points towards MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer. Does that answer it? –Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Quiddity, thank you so much! This is the thing I was thinking about and kind of looking for the months! My evening was not planned to be so amazing as it turned out after you response. I am so grateful to you! Pacha Tchernof (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Double-encoding is quite hackish, and I’m not even sure if it would work in all cases (it could double-encode things). The correct solution is using {{urlencode:}} with a second WIKI parameter, like this: //xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/www.mediawiki.org/{{urlencode:{{{1|$1}}}|WIKI}}. (By the way, protocol-relative URLs are no longer really useful nowadays, I’d hardcode the https: in the URL. But this might be a matter of taste.) Tacsipacsi (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Tacsipacsi! Could you please elaborate your method and explain in a simple way? I didn't get where and how you suggest to use {{urlencode:}}. Thank you! Pacha Tchernof (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pacha Tchernof Shirayuki already fixed it here. :) –Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks! :) Pacha Tchernof (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Please help about Help:TemplateData

Add a Wikibase instance to mediawiki.org

@Emu @Gymnicus @Wd-Ryan @Rdrg109

Recently at Wikidata we created items for all of the Wikimedia developer teams under Product (Q86030252) and Technology (Q27983251) and sitelinked them to their pages on mediawiki.org. We also started creating items the team members of these teams and linking them to their teams. The intention was that they could be used to display the team members in the Template:Wikimedia Team Info infobox template without requiring the text to be manually added and would also then be queryable. I particularly wanted to generate a tree of all the Wikimedia teams and their developers with this data documented.

However, documenting data about Wikimedia is currently in a grey area regarding its notability on Wikidata. This is demonstrated by the recent deletion request to delete some of the Wikimedia developer items.

What would probably make more sense is for mediawiki.org to have its own Wikibase instance so that these development teams and their developer teams could be properly documented where they most-closely belong. That way we don't have to worry about notability issues on Wikidata.

Could this be done? Lectrician1 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t have any experience in Meta stuff but as a layman, this would probably solve this conflict pretty well. Links to some more context here: :wikidata:User:Emu/Notability#Wikimedia-related_stuff Emu (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Any other ideas of what we could add to the Wikibase instance? I like the idea of it. Wd-Ryan (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

We could document anything related to the Mediawiki tech stack! Mediawiki documentation and data from Template:Extension could use the Wikibase! Lectrician1 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This sounds great, count me in for extensively modeling everything about Mediawiki. Wd-Ryan (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Tbh, im not really sure how mediawiki.org would benefit from this. Bawolff (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I am in favor of putting the data in Wikidata. If for some reason not all data can be in Wikidata, then much of the data already is in Wikidata and people will spontaneously add more anyway. I set up https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Wikimedia_Foundation to advance the discussion about how the Wikidata community can manage this content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, while WMF is very prominent in mediawiki, mediawiki has many different groups involved (as well as unaffiliated people) not just foundation employees. Bawolff (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Using my volunteer account here, because all I'm saying is what I've learned as a volunteer, or it's public already, and I'm only sharing my private view on this.

I think I understand why you're doing this. I respect that. Several years ago, I'd do something similar. There's a chance that the past me shares the motivation. Now, however, I'd strongly advise NOT to try to document all this. Let's not go too much down the org chart.

• Individual people come and go. They change teams and their roles, sometimes they work temporarily in different teams and roles, they join and leave the Foundation. Even if they contribute to public projects, not all of them are public figures.
• Similarly, teams are created and disbanded, but also over time, they evolve. Their scopes and names are changed. This is due to plans, strategies, leaders' will, team members' will. This isn't consistently documented on wiki.
  • Examples: Growth in 2014 and Growth in 2022 are two totally different groups with different stories. The same naming is like a coincidence. Mobile Web and Web - that's more like an evolution. Contributors in 2017 and Contributor Tools in 2022 are two different concepts, not even different teams (because the current Contributor Tools is a group of teams, not one team).
  • Example of d:Q27983256: I'm not sure if the former Contributors team at the WMF might have used the name Wikimedia Contributors. Did it ever, btw? It never was a "department" equal to the Product department. It never was the same as the Technology department either.

In practice, documenting the WMF departments and C-levels is doable. (Although don't ask me if VPs/directors reporting to the CEO when there's no C-level in their department count as fractional C-levels themselves). But documenting all teams and team members correctly and consistently - nah, that's unrealistic. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 21:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@tar We are talking about an organization that spends ~US$1 billion every five years. It is entirely reasonable for our community to ask basic questions about where this money goes, what teams we have, what products they develop.

We have this superpowered tool, Wikidata, which sorts knowledge with clarity and intelligence beyond human capacity. Data entry into it is routinely achievable with minimum wage untrained labor. It seems like Wikidata would solve so many problems where currently we are storing the information in the brains of some highly paid humans who have a conflict of interest in identifying, discussing, or addressing some of the challenges we face.

The problems you identify with Wikidata are valid, but for those very issues that you identify, the current path to accessing that information is that a human has to draw you into a conversation where you communicate it with your fingers typing or tongue speaking. Are you arguing that human to human communication is a sustainable, affordable, and reasonable alternative to this amazing database infrastructure which we designed seemingly for cases just like this? Or is your position that there generally is not knowledge here worth sharing in new ways? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry I take your point but I don’t think it’s a good idea to use Wikidata to solve all of the world’s problems. From what I hear on DE.WP, the WMF is essentially accountable to nobody and about as transparent as a 10 inch concrete wall (slightly exaggerated for dramatic effect) but doesn’t that mean that there not only is no independent outside coverage but we also have problems with the “inside coverage”, too? And our data collection would mostly rely on sparse documentation and a lot of guesswork, combined with WD:BLP issues raised on every corner? As much as I value transparency, Wikidata is maybe not the right venue for this. Emu (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@emu you say Wikidata is not the venue @bawolff you say that mediawiki is not the venue. Fine, that hardly matters. The data could be in any Wikibase instance - here is the registry. https://wikibase-registry.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page

Data sharing of the Wikimedia Foundation merits more conversation and a serious response. If someone wants to argue that the data is too dangerous or misleading to share then that is a interesting claim worth exploring. This data does not seem expensive or challenging to share. There is also Wikimedia community demand for it, and even if not shared officially, the Wikimedia community is already haphazardly developing it on-Wikidata now. It would be nice for the WMF to share a complete dataset and give some cooperation about hosting it somewhere, because significantly more WMF transparency in data seems inevitable. Does anyone know of a senior person in WMF who has been or would be brave enough to publicly state opposition to converting the team, staff, and product information which is already public from prose into structured data?

No one is asking for new information; we all are here just asking for plain text posted into Wikidata or a Wikibase instance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I weakly think mediawiki is not the right place (By which i mean, I probably wouldn't be actively editing it, but don't let me be the one to stop you). My main objection is that keeping all this info up to date seems like a lot of work, and normal pages on mediawiki don't really benefit from this as far as i can see. I think ideally this would be kept in wikidata, although i guess that depends on what they think of that.

I do think we should keep in mind that these are real people, who do have a certain amount of rights to privacy. However, they are contributing to a public project, so i think keeping track of org charts is super reasonable and not a privacy violation.

I'd worry a bit you are over-indexing a tad on the "formal" org chart. Formal org charts often don't reflect the reality on the ground, in any organization. I think this applies to WMF more than most. The power structure of WMF is complicated with both formal position as well as informal influences. I guess there really isn't an alternative if you want to track things, but you can run into the trap of collecting the data that is (relatively) easy vs the things you actually want to know.

I suppose my hesitancy comes down to - I'm not sure what you aim to achieve with this project, and i don't think it will bring the transparency you desire.

> Does anyone know of a senior person in WMF who has been or would be brave enough to publicly state opposition to converting the team, staff, and product information which is already public from prose into structured data?

I highly doubt anyone at WMF really cares. If anything they would probably be happy about this so they could make sense of their own org chart. Bawolff (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's another page that could be easily generated with Wikibase data: Developers/Maintainers Lectrician1 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Wikidata items all got deleted, so I think we should definitely consider this. Lectrician1 (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Wikidata items all got deleted, so I think we should definitely consider this.

Presumably there was a discussion that led to them being deleted? Can you link to that discussion so the wider community can participate in a single conversation about whether to track this in structured data, and if so, where? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jdforrester (WMF) it was linked in the original post, but here's the archive now: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2022/11/20#Wikimedia_developers Lectrician1 (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)