Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66


Designer Linus Bowman recently made a (likely controversial) YouTube critique of Wikipedia's logo: It's very well-informed for someone not a Wikipedian, and—agree or disagree—it's definitely well thought through. What do you all think? (Discovery credit to Geni earlier on Discord.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, I agree with everything he says in that video. Vexations (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW, People who prefer a different logo can do so by editing their common.css To get the W as the logo for example, add
.mw-wiki-logo { background-image: url(}
Vexations (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Or hide the logo completely. Add this to your common.js$('#p-logo').hide().removeAttr('id');GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current logo as someone somewhere is always going to complain with any given alternative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep. Hurts to say, but he is spot on — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with the video. In the modern world there seems to be this trope that everything has to follow current trends, and follow "branding". I disagree with that. Wikipedia is big enough not to have to follow trends. And I would give the producer of that video a couple of words of advice. Firstly the combination of hair style and hat, which are almost indistinguishable, make him look, frankly, silly, and secondly beards only suit people with "lived-in" faces (like mine), not the kind of baby faces that he has. I'm sure he would look much better without it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The logo probably appeals more to editors than readers. For a non-profit relying on huge numbers of volunteers, that's not so bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Aside from everything Phil Bridger says, I refuse to take advice on image and style from someone who has such an abominable image at the top of their YouTube channel page --Khajidha (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Was the second half of your comment really necessary? It was a well researched video of opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but commenting on someone's hair and beard seems way off the mark. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
When someone is criticising our image, as he has a perfect right to do, we also have the right to criticise his image. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That's not how Graham's hierarchy of disagreement works. The central point of his argument is the appearance and image of the designed logo. A criticism of his personal image is utterly irrelevant to refuting that point.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
That heirarchy is pretty good for matters of fact, such as the average density of Europa or who was on the throne when the Great Fire of London took place, but is not appropriate for matters of taste and opinion, such as this. Particularly in these times when anyone can easily publish anything on the Internet it is necessary to make a judgment about whether someone's opinion is worth listening to. I do not believe that that is the case with an identikit follower of hipster fashion. He may be right about what logo a small entrepreneurial startup that wants to make its mark should use (although I would argue even there that difference is more important than trendiness) but is certainly not when it comes to the logo of the world's foremost encyclopedia which does not have commercial considerations. We should not be following trends, but doing our own thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
No, just no. You've managed to—somehow—double the meaninglessness of your first comment with this recent one. Ever consider that if you want to be taken seriously, resorting to insult someone's physical appearance won't get you anywhere? Aza24 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
He misses a couple of things (although they are secondary to his point). The globe is incomplete for a reason. There's also the issue that in a volunteer driven project its more important that the logo be seen as something we created (and thus have a degree of ownership over) than it be ideal from a branding design POV. The globe may not be ideal but its our not ideal.©Geni (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to deeply understand Wikipedia the project. (Just pick your language and forget it. That is not a major feature. ?? ) He also seems to be like one of those design students who occasionally link their school projects here. Change for change's sake because that is what pays his monthly rent. Rmhermen (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you expand on this comment? I'm a monolinguist and in awe of people who can work in multiple languages, but I suspect I'm in the majority not the minority. While I do a tiny bit of work in other languages, 99.9% of the time I'm working in English. How does the fact that we have multiple languages distinguish us from virtually any multinational, from a publishing house that publishes the multiple languages, from a webpage that is available multiple languages etc. etc. I understand some pride how many languages we have but that's not connoted by the logo, it simply connotes there are multiple languages. Is this something about the project I'm missing? I thought his analogy to Starbucks and napkins was spot on — it's absolutely true that there are napkins in every store but how is that a distinguishing feature? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlike webpages where each language version is a direct translation of a single text (perhaps even a computer translation), on Wikipedia, articles in different languages are written by different language communities with differing emphasis and differing local rules for subject matter importance, organization, suitability, etc. Topics don't even necessarily have one to one correspondence between languages. Notice, for instance, there is no interwiki link for cookie in the German language because there is no singular corresponding concept. Rmhermen (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: about "I'm in the majority", it's kind of hard to measure (be abe to speak, to work, to be fluent, etc.) but around 50% of the World is at least bilingual. The big difference with other website or any published document is that Wikipedia is the most multilingual educational content of the World, ever. Wikipedia have 306+ languages, most website have 10 and even Google Translate has only 109 languages. Only the Bible has more languages than Wikipedia (704 langues for full translation, maybe soon Wikipedia will beat that Face-wink.svg), followed by a small number of books (List of literary works by number of translations) in the same range as Wikipedia. This is maybe not the most important thing about Wikipedia (reading an encyclopedia your own language(s) seems important to me) but it's definitly unique and noteworthy. PS: I also liked the napkins analogy. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It is perfectly fine that the current logo does not fit into a stripped-down minimalist sensibility of design "pureness". Boman may not have a deep understanding the WP project. This critique of the logo sounds like art-school-talk full of cliche's about what constitutes "good design". To better understand Bowman's own design sensibility and POV, I tried looking online but could not find anything, nor his design studio/company, or what his personal design sensibility is like. Please let me know if I missed something - it would be interesting to have a look. While watching the video, a credibility gap developed ... "the worst logo in the world", "it sucks" "it's horrible", "it fails", "it's finicky", "it's bad", "it's a shit show". These sophomoric (if not childish) critiques gave pause, but more questionable was that he dissed the logo on the fact "it was made by a 17 year old." So what? More power to 17 year old creative artists! Rock on! This is to be celebrated, esp. in the 20th anniversary of the project! It's a symbol of one of our core values: "anyone can contribute." Netherzone (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
He probably makes some good points if the video annoyed people here so much as to go and attack his looks. josecurioso ❯❯❯ Tell me! 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
From a branding perspective he does make reasonable points, but he fails to understand that as a volunteer-driven project we don't need or want outside designers to adjudicate over, or create, the logo that represents us. Also the lack of super-condensed meaning (sigil magic) compared to other web logos is a good thing. As a volunteer I don't want to be exposed to mind tricks designed to draw me back in. Regards, Zindor (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Zindor, I'm not on board with this argument. I start by noting that when Linus summarized "the brief" he picked up on some points from the 20th anniversary celebration, but those points, at least the ones he selected, did not mention volunteerism. I agree that's a key element and it would be nice to incorporated alloy don't have a clue as to how to do that. However, acknowledging that the project is heavily dependent on volunteers does not translate into arguing that the branding should be created by volunteers. As an analogy, that would be like the WWF asserting that their key goal is preserving wildlife, and therefore their logo should be designed by animals. I don't see any inconsistency between emphasizing the dependence on volunteers, while hiring the best and the brightest to make that point. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, i think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not suggesting volunteering be a part of the logo, but that any group of volunteers would feel more empowered, invested and represented by a logo either designed by themselves collectively or by a member of their community. If our community really has a dearth of artistic prowess then I might concede that a designer should be hired to follow a brief created from community consensus, but I can't imagine that's the case. Right now the WMF has a rebranding initiative going on; I don't know if the logo is in the purvue of that but I do know that the community isn't being consulted. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That's troublingly persuasive. I frankly haven't given a lot of thought to the logo, but recognize that it tried to portray Wikipedia as not finished and available in many languages. I won't speak for Linus, but if you were here I I suspect he would say, "yes both of those are facts, but do they represent the key facts about the product?" And he persuasively shows that those are the key facts we want to emphasize. Lots of things are available in multiple languages, including the directions to set up my TV. What I consider choosing a TV brand based on many languages they support? of course not. Yes, the incomplete message is intended to contrast Wikipedia to the canonical bookshelf Britannica, but that was an interesting fact in 2001, not in 2021. Time for a rethink. And he even tells us how to do it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The logo always seems to be misunderstood. The whole point of the globe being unfinished represents how Wikipedia itself will never be completed. We will always edit, always add, always take away, always aim for a complete whole without ever getting there. I know that online branding has changed and moved and matured down the years, but that doesn't mean we always have to follow the fashion. The globe is fine. doktorb wordsdeeds
  • According to Alexa, WP is only the 13th most visited site on the internet. Clearly we're failing to connect to an audience! I'm sure Linus has helped some of the top 12 right? </sarcasm> Matt Deres (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This video is hard to take into consideration when he is directly blaming the Wikipedia community for their "incompetence" as to why the logo is the way that it is. And although i do agree not everyone is a professional at Wikipedia, that doesn't mean there aren't any professionals at all. I do agree the logo needs refinement, but I disagree that the logo is "bad" overall, and it's still iconic to this day. Another gripe I have with the video is the claims he's the majority of people when he says the logo is bad. I'm not against the argument, but without any substantial proof, it's just another attempt to seem like Wikipedia is out of touch with the community and blaming the logo because of it. I just do not agree with the approach. What's worst about the video is he gave vague advice but didn't give a hint as to how to tackle the problem.

With that said, It's a personal passion for me to study and review logo designs as a hobby. I don't think most of the points are I'm not against refining the logo or changing it. But if that topic is to come up, I think it would be more productive to not highlight that specific video and just the points. Based on my inspection of the logo, it continues to have an "early-internet" vibe, and it's not because of the graphic. The Word-mark aspect of the logo appears to be just the word "Wikipedia" with the W and A at slightly different font size and some minor modified spacing. The awkward spacing causes some issues with the W appears more separated from the rest of the text. I would even say that the font used is out-dated. These are just my opinions of course.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As someone who started using the internet before the the Web was a thing, I find your idea of "early" interesting. History of Wikipedia#Evolution of logo shows some of the changes through time of the logo but even the earliest is far more complex than actual early web design. Rmhermen (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Rmhermen: I'm referring to the text portion of the logo, not the graphic.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Choices for Main Page (in English)[edit]

I love Wikipedia, depend on it, and support it, and the Main Page is my home page. I read it every day. I understand why you have, for example, sports information, even though I don't care about sports. But over time, the choice of articles seems to dwell too heavily on a few obscure topics. I think most of us have seen more than enough about the administrators of Georgetown University and about Indonesian cinema. Thanks! Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to help us make new content to feature on the main page! That's the only way to ensure you get what you want. :^) --Izno (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Besides adding that there's also been enough about the Australian military, I take issue with Izno's comment that implies the problem (or what I see as a problem) is my fault. I cannot be the case that the three topics I've mentioned are so heavily represented among new content that whoever chooses what to feature has no choice but to include them so often.Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is the case. Or more accurately its less new content and more new content submitted for Did you know. What you are seeing is that there are a few people who specialise in those areas and write new articles at a level that meets the Did you know standards. Everything submitted to Did you know that meets the requirements (mostly being new enough and big enough) will be featured on the main page.©Geni (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Curmudgeonly Pedant When readers/editors/users complain about something not being good enough, experienced editors often respond with comments like the one above. It may be seen as a little snarky, but it is absolutely true. The solution is for you - yes, you - to improve something else to that high standard and help drown out the others. Too much Australian military in the DYK? Go ahead and improve/create so many articles on barnacles, spy satellites, and extra-solar planets that nobody else has to be in that situation again. You'll see it on the help desk as well: why isn't there an article on X? Why is the article on Y so bad? The answer is the same. Everything here was created by people who 1) saw something that needed fixing and 2) went ahead and fixed it. You're at step one. Step two is easier than you think. You've already made a few edits; just keep going. Matt Deres (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Curmudgeonly Pedant has pointed out a very valid problem that too much of the content on the Main Page is chosen to satisfy editors as opposed to readers. There's no reason that we have to restrict ourselves to drawing DYKs from new articles (which means that some topics will always make outsized appearances because specialist editors will nominate their own new work), or that we couldn't take a harder stance about TFAs with recent similar precedents or the flood of sports ITN items. Dismissing that concern with "well then go create some articles yourself" is not only patronizing (people should be allowed to point out problems without becoming obligated to solve them) but misses the point. Yes, we'd always like new contributors, but unless contributors become more evenly distributed across content areas (which won't happen anytime soon), the problem won't solve itself. We need to start putting readers first and designing the main page to interest them, rather than just using it to reward ourselves with prominent placement for our work. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As a follow-up question to Curmudgeonly Pedant, I'd be curious which sections of the main page you're following and are noticing this in. They each operate very differently.
Also, courtesy pinging @Izno, Geni, and Matt Deres: in case you want to respond. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
chosen to satisfy editors as opposed to readers If in fact you mean "satisfy the general requirements that we have for all articles, desiring not to showcase articles that don't", sure. I am not dismissing the concern; I am indicating that there is a fix already available to the person in question--hence why I used the word ensure. He literally can be the person to change what is featured on the main page. Changing how our processes works in any significant fashion so as to highlight articles which don't meet some fairly low but arbitrary bars is about as likely as your tangent about content diversity. Anything else refuses to acknowledge the realities of how our main page works, which is also patronizing. --Izno (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Izno, it seems I didn't articulate well above what kinds of changes I'd want to see made to the way the main page operates, as what you're responding to isn't what I'm suggesting. I agree that we need to maintain some basic quality standards before featuring content. But we have plenty of high quality content that we could be featuring but aren't because of all the other rules that shape what we choose for the main page, many of which we take for granted because they've become so ingrained. I don't see content diversity as a tangent here, as the issue that has been brought up is precisely that our main page content lacks diversity. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Using bits of the main page as a motivator for editors is I'd argue a reasonable use of the page. ITN and OTD are reader facing. FA and FP are a mix (standards are too high to be relevant to most editors but that is fine). DYK motivates at least a subset of editors by providing something to aim for with standards most editors can reach.©Geni (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a perennial issue, and this FAQ about it was begun in 2007. Art LaPella (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Friends, I'm delighted that my comment didn't just fall into a hole. I'm also humbled to think more about how much work by dedicated people, at many levels, goes into the main page (and all of Wikipedia): I've been badly trained as an American consumer, and I'll just take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributes to this vitally important project. I poked around enough to find out that Wikipedia editors identify Featured Articles/Pictures (no further process information found) and then two individuals choose the Featured Article of the Day; once these two became real people in my mind, well, if one of them has a fondness for Georgetown University and the other for the Australian military, I'll accept that as the price of admission; similarly for the Featured Picture skewing towards Indonesian cinema. However, I would speculate, contrary to some of the comments above, that it is not the case that there are just so many outstanding articles/pictures on these three topics written/photographed that the (unexplained) process of nominations for Featured status and then the choice of main page placement give proportional representation to all topics. And finally, yes, I should ping everyone who has commented on this thread, and I looked up how to do so; the very complete article was not composed for someone who is new to editing Wikipedia, although I'm sure it's clear as day to all of you; this may be a good example of how difficult it is for us newbies to get involved.Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to potential articles to run as Today's Featured Article, this is what we currently have to work with (excluding the rare occasions where we re-run something that's already appeared on the main page before, in which case this is what we have to work with); it has nothing to do with "whoever selects the articles having a particular fondness for [whatever topic you happen to feel is over-represented]". Short of abolishing the quality standards for what appears on the main page (which aren't—contrary to your claims—some secret process, but explained here), the advice you've already been given is correct; if you feel a topic is underrepresented, make sure the articles on that topic meet the quality standards and they'll duly appear on the main page. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are we hoping to resolve with this discussion?--WaltCip-(talk) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WaltCip, I'd phrase it as trying to get the main page content more aligned with what readers will find interesting. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
WaltCip,what I think most of the comments here were intended to do is to educate me. For example, Iridescent pointed me to the process by which articles become featured articles, which I would never have found on my own. The point I take away from the discussion, which I think can now be closed and purged/archived/whatever, is that we who are primarily consumers of Wikipedia have no idea of the processes that have been developed to maintain the caliber of articles and that to maintain the standards requires a fair amount of procedures, a.k.a. bureaucracy, to the point where a significant amount of learning is required to understand what happens "under the hood". Let's all agree that the system is meritocratic rather than democratic, and that's okay.Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Curmudgeonly Pedant! I understand your main concern here. Unfortunately, this problem is a perpetual problem. If we were to focus on reader's interest, then we should consider that most readers are from Anglophone countries, causing us to only include materials that are well known to anglophone countries in the mainpage, thus completely going against one of our current goals in Wikipedia. But I'm thinking about something in the middle, probably non-specific country articles are proper enough to satisfy readers but still in line with countering bias. Do you consider biology topics interesting enough to appear in the mainpage? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to have an "interesting page of the day" module, where editors could nominate any page, and it'd have to meet a minimum quality threshold but the primary criterion would be that it's interesting or unusual. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb, that would be a job fit for DYK. If that's the case then we should either a) remove the time limits or b) emphasize more on its "interesting" part than its "content". As far as I could see, regulars in DYK exercise more scrutiny on the content instead of the interest. I think we could draw a conclusion or analyze what is interesting to readers by looking at WP:DYKSTATS. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
You are, as the saying goes, always free to select articles that are interesting to you and get them up to FA status so they can enjoy the limelight. Or at least up to DYK-worth so they get a bit more notice. That's what other people did. Seeing your work on the main page is also a nice feeling; it gives editors a reward for their hard work and it promotes the idea of quality being important. Matt Deres (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Matt Deres: That perspective is exactly what I was responding to above, so I'll be more blunt this time. It is closed-minded to take as a given that the main page should continue to operate as it currently does, and it is not useful to suggest individual work will solve a systemic problem, as by definition it won't. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: *rubs head* Ok, fine, if that's the case. How about if we set up a survey and put it as a banner to see what our readers want? Have we tried doing that before? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Another, more direct solution from me. You've linked unusual articles in your reply. How about if we set up a project dedicated to the improvement of articles in WP:UNUSUAL and awards users who do such things? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, can we please refrain from displaying articles with vulgar language on the front page? The DIY section that details the Reddit username "DeepFuckingValue" seems unnecessary. There are many children that use this sight, not to mention it looks unprofessional. TalkingOrder 12:27, 19 February 2021 (CST)

@TalkingOrder: That's something that's been proposed and fiercely debated in the past. The view of many editors is that WP:NOTCENSORED applies. I think you're right that it's an area where the preferences of editors and readers diverge, but beyond that it's a separate enough question that if you want to discuss it further, I'd suggest reading some of the history (lmk if you need help finding it) and then opening a separate thread. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a long history of vulgar content on the main page, for example Fuck (film) was TFA on March 1, 2014. I doubt this will change anytime soon, nor should it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
What are we protecting children from? That the word "Fuck" exists? We aren't nannies, and we don't legislate computer usage. Reality is frequently vulgar.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


It was jarring to look at the main page one day, see a picture of Porfirije in the news, and then the next day see him ten years younger and in a very bad mood. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You could have brought this up at WP:ERRORS.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Favorite community wishlist items?[edit]

As was posted earlier on VPT, we're participating in Outreachy/GSoC, which means that students will be paid to work on some of our bugs or feature requests. If anyone has a community wishlist item that hasn't yet been done but would be very impactful, please let me know (here or on my talk page). Unfortunately, I can't mentor anything involving PHP or MediaWiki extensions (because I know next to nothing about the former), but I can do stuff involving new tools, bots, or user scripts. If you would also like to get involved as a mentor (i.e. project manager - see this guide), that would be most appreciated, and would make the project much more likely to be "accepted" and actually have someone work on it. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I know you said no PHP/MediaWiki extensions, but in case someone is reading this who is willing to do those I have two pet projects I'd like to see: I've been pushing to get meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers/Implement deferred changes done for a while. A lot of the code is already done, but I think code review will be the bigger issue. The abusefilter does a lot of work in combating spam, vandalism and abuse. This would allow it to be used more strategically in response to BLP issues and whatnot. I do, however, sympathise with Nosebagbear's concerns that they mentioned in regards to the UI of pending changes, and that may need to be improved.
I think meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Mobile and apps/Mobile editnotices is probably quite helpful, too. The stack of code for editnotices is a mess. I think that code could do better. A lot of IP/casual editors especially are mobile now, and often on controversial topics (Death of Sushant Singh Rajput, for example) make unhelpful edits. If we could communicate a message, that would be helpful. It would also pave the door to possibly revamping the WP:AWAREness system to work on an editnotice-basis.
More urgent than both is to fix mobile users not getting talk page notifications and block messages, but I hope/suspect WMF will fix that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not particularly impactful (since this is done by only a small number of users), but putting it out anyway – the DYK project wants a script to automate the very tedious DYK promotion process. See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Discussion_of_script. – SD0001 (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Is meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2021/Search/Suggest_to_Exclude_Indirect_Linked_Articles_from_"What_links_here" the sort of thing? Would be very useful for gnomish editors who want to see the implications of a page move (eg "if the 103 incoming links are 100 from a navbox template, plus 3, then I'll go ahead and move the article and tidy up those 4 links; if they are from 103 different articles, maybe I'll just add a helpful hatnote and leave the article at the wrong title"). Two solutions are suggested - either only list the navbox template (not the 100 pages which use it), or display the incoming links showing explicitly that these links are via the template, as is already done for redirects. PamD 17:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Another one which is more impactful: we need a smart NLP powered bot at AFC that looks at all pending drafts (usually about 5000) and picks the 500 potentially promising ones so that human reviewers can prioritise reviewing these. – SD0001 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Call for Feedback: Community Board seats - Midpoint update[edit]

Hi all, I am writing here to let you know a few things:

  1. The third weekly report is now available for the Call for Feedback: Community Board seats.
  2. This is the middle of the Call for Feedback, which means we are halfway through! If you have not joined the conversation, please do so. The facilitation team does not want to miss hearing your feedback.
  3. For the second half of the Call for Feedback the plan is to promote further discussion around four topics that need disentanglement: regional quotas, candidates' skills, vetting of candidates, and the connection of Board elections with the Global Council and the Regional Hubs.

Do reach out if you have any questions or comments. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way to execute javascript files in user pages?[edit]

I wonder if its possible to execute javascript in Wikipedia user pages, so that I can stop my user page from being able to be vandalised with a solution like putting wgRestrictionEdit:["4D4850"]; or something else to cause protection. Please can someone tell me if executable javascript is usable in the user namespace? 4D4850 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No. If your user page is being vandalized, you can request an admin to protect it at WP:RFPP. --Izno (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@4D4850: No, see Cross-site scripting. If you could do that, you'd have full control of the other user's account. For example, if an admin visited your page, you would be able to use the script to block people or vandalize the main page or maybe even trick them into giving you their password. What you put in in User:4D4850/common.js will work only for yourself, but for the same reason, you shouldn't put anything you don't trust on that page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's worth also mentioning that there is a filter in place which will prevent any non-autoconfirmed user from editing any user page which is not 'theirs'. This will cut out 99% of any attempted vandalism, which is likely to be minimal anyway if you're not regularly dealing with vandals. I put 'theirs' in scare quotes because these are just community pages which anyone might want to edit, for example to fix a category which is messing up something else, or perhaps make some other improvement. This is a wiki after all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, @Suffusion of Yellow:. I just realized that if that was possible, it would allow someone to become a "Wikipedia Dictator" (put in quotes because that is just what I'm calling it), thus rendering Wikipedia failing horribly at it's goal of being an open to edit repository of human knowledge, although now I think about it, someone could reasonably use the if autoconfirmed templateThis is the problem to make Wikipedia unable to be read by IPs, which would also be bad. 4D4850 (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contest[edit]

01:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)