Wikimedia Forum - Meta

Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki Jump to navigation Jump to search ← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives → Shortcut:

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


This box: view · talk · edit SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.


Cookies added to ip blocks[edit]

The Anti-Harassment Tools team expanded cookie blocking to IP blocks and this week it will be deployed on all wiki after successful testing on Italian Wikipedia. (phab:T152462) SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Will this be implemented from the coming Monday? --Muzammil (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Muzammil, I apologize for missing your question. It did go live already on all Wikimedia projects around the middle of July. SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


WikiMiniAtlas has not been showing wikilinks for quite some time now. I've contacted user:Dschwen about this issue several times, but I've gotten no response. There was also a GitHub case for this issue, but it was never closed. Anything we can do? --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: I asked about this on #wikimedia-cloudconnect and got some very helpful responses from Chicocvenancio. You can view the IRC logs (the conversation starts at 2018-08-09 23:53).
Here is my summary. On Wikimedia Cloud Services, wiki replica databases and user-created databases used to be on the same server. This allowed WikiMiniAtlas to use a SQL join operation to efficiently query the combined table of wiki articles (from the replica database) and geographical data (from the user-created database). However, as a result of operations changes, wiki replicas and user-generated databases are now on separate servers. This means that you can no longer use a simple SQL join. You would have to rewrite the join code using application logic. On the Phabricator issue, Dschwen wrote:
“ Death blow for GHEL coordinate extraction and WikiMiniAtlas. 🙁”
Additionally, on the wikimedia-cloud mailing list discussion of this change, Dschwen wrote:
“ Suggesting that joins be just done in the application logic is frankly quite naive. I have one particular application where I need to join millions of entries each on about 50 projects. I used to have an application join algorithm years ago, when the data sets were much smaller and I supported way fewer projects. It was a disaster back then with extremely long run times and frequent failures (when serves went away etc.). It doesn't scale up. On-server joins increased the performance by orders of magnitude. I won't be able to go back to the old way. It sucks. Nobody is as sad about this as I am. I feel like the floor is put away under my feet and under my creation.”
So it is clear that Dschwen is not optimistic about porting WMA over to use application logic joins. It would be non-trivial but technically possible to rewrite a relatively efficient join algorithm from scratch in application logic. On the mailing list thread, Dschwen indicated that he has a limited time budget, so he may not be up for doing this. As for what to do, I'm not sure. Perhaps Dschwen will change his mind and attempt to rewrite his code. If not, it would probably be best to contact another developer, possibly someone who is already an administrator of the WikiMiniAtlas project. The longshot option is to try to convince the ops team to leave a server up where joins are still possible, as Dschwen proposed. I'm not very optimistic about that strategy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: Alright, I'll look into that, thank you for doing the research! --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for finding and summarising the status. I am a long way from being an expert on running server farms for cloud services and data warehouses. However I might have thought that given the visibility of the WikiMiniAtlas and its general usefulness to the reading population, if a particular combination of database tables and indexes is needed together to provide efficient access to make WikiMiniAtlas as responsive and useful as possible, then that set of databases should be created and maintained in its own corner of the virtual server universe, independent of what is needed to run any other services. That should include at least the dots for other Wikipedia articles, and for integration of lines and areas (e.g. river and highway paths, suburb boundaries) from OSM. --ScottDavis (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill, Chippyy, Jeremyb, and Kolossos: Pinging some of the administrators of the Maps cloud project. @AndrewBogott (WMF) and BDavis (WMF): Pinging some WMF Cloud Team members. PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
My feelings are in the moment similar to the feelings of Dschwen. My project is wp-world[1] which is the alternative to the WikiminiAtlas in many different other language versions of Wikipedia. Two days ago my POIs on the map disappears. After looking closer, I believe somebody delete/move my database tables Bug report: [] In my case I hope admins can help.
BTW: I have also an other bug report (since January!!!) [] , which makes the situation for me relative frustrating. --Kolossos (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
So every once in a while the Wikimedia Foundation breaks a volunteer tool. A lot of the people working for the WMF just don't realize (or don't care, but let's assume good faith here) what kind of impact their changes have. It's either fight (trying to restore functionality) or run (abandon the tool). I'm not wasting any energy on these kind of situations any more. Two solutions here:
  1. Completely rewrite tools to not rely on database joins. As Daniel mentioned: Extremely hard and extremely time consuming. And it just sucks having to spend a lot of volunteer time because someone just broke it. I don't see this happen
  2. Restore the user databases and production databases on the same server. I don't expect the team to do this unless they are forced to do it. They will tell you 100 different reasons why this shouldn't be restored. You need outside pressure
@PiRSquared17, Kolossos, and Dschwen: you could completely break the tool and redirect it to a page explaining why it's broken, post some notices on several forums like Wikimedia-l and the several village pumps. Channel the outrage towards the WMF and you might get some movement from that side. You tried it the nice way and that failed. Good luck.Multichill (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

New user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS[edit]

(Please help translate to your language)

Hi all!

To improve the security of our readers and editors, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed. (These are pages like MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Vector.js which contain code that is executed in the browsers of users of the site.) A new user group, interface-admin, has been created. Starting four weeks from now, only members of this group will be able edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage).

You can learn more about the motivation behind the change here.

Please add users who need to edit CSS/JS to the new group (this can be done the same way new administrators are added, by stewards or local bureaucrats). This is a dangerous permission; a malicious user or a hacker taking over the account of a careless interface-admin can abuse it in far worse ways than admin permissions could be abused. Please only assign it to users who need it, who are trusted by the community, and who follow common basic password and computer security practices (use strong passwords, do not reuse passwords, use two-factor authentication if possible, do not install software of questionable origin on your machine, use antivirus software if that's a standard thing in your environment).

Tgr (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC) (via global message delivery)

New WMF homepage[edit]

Where can I find the old homepage. The new one is obviously written for smart phones. I use a big screen and at the new WMF homepage the font and the pictures are so big that I have to scroll a lot to get information. The old homepage was concise with easy to find information and had a pleasing design. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[]. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 15:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
That's the one I was looking for. Thanks! --Gereon K. (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User interaction investigations & Interaction Timeline[edit]

Hello all,

Want to give an update about a new feature for the interaction timeline tool and talk about my observations when I’ve tested the tool on active cases on NOTICEBOARDS.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T197148

The interaction timeline tool will soon generate text output that can be shared in on wiki. This allows people who are preparing a report about user conflict or doing an user interaction investigation of a noticeboard report to add a link to the results with a brief summary of results. This new feature aims to enhance one of main purposes for the tool–to provide a neutral and complete chronological record of the interaction between two users. I'm interesting in learning about how this improves or harms discussions.

My experimentation will some live active AN/I cases shows that there will still be heavy lifting to do a thorough investigation on complex cases, but it improves the investigation by:

  • eliminating only seeing one sided cherry picked diffs from one or both parties to the dispute
  • giving a complete chronological record of the pages where interactions happen with a diff that can be expanded for further review of the interaction. In addition to showing the frequency of negative interactions, this could aid with understanding the scope of topic or interaction bans.
  • calculating and displaying the amount of time between interactions in small red text,
  • allowing you to change date ranges to see a longer view of interactions or narrower view restricted to a shorter timespan when a conflict heats up.

Lastly, I started a page on wiki that highlights the tools that can be used to investigate user interaction conflicts. Community health initiative/User interaction investigation tools. Time permitting, sometime later this week, I plan to add more details about approaches to investigating complex cases. I welcome review, improvement, and sharing with others if you think it is useful.

As always, I’m interested in learning other people's experiences using the tool. You can share either here in this discussion, by email, or on my talk page.

Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments snubs Scotland and Wales[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM)'s international team has just responded to my request for Wales and Scotland be part of the international competition. Their response is negative - that they "use the UN(ESCO) membership as the basis from which we work".

WLM appologised for taking 10 months to answer my request, as you can see here. I have now come to the following conclusions, that:

  1. their decision to snub Scotland and Wales will be offensive to many editors, photographers within the WM movement, and contradicts everything Wikimedia stands for: inclusion, diversity, openness and free spirit.
  2. WLM's publicity wrongly states that this is a competition for 'countries': that is misleading! It is a competition for the chosen few, the selection made by UN(ESCO), not by open minded Wikimedians using sources as criteria.
  3. the international committee does not recognise the importance of what the sources say. 1,000s of neutral, solid, reliable, academic sources, over a period of over 1,200 years, clearly state that Scotland and Wales are indeed countries. WLM's decision to ignore these sources contravenes the most fundamental of all our principals that sources trump everything else in recording 'the sum of all human knowledge'. UN(ESCO)'s criteria is not based on sources; its membership is based on politics, usually - the countries which managed to take over smaller ones get the cake, and eat it.

I applaud WMF's recent change of focus from large, sovereign countries to the global south, but I also believe that there is a middle layer of countries such as Wales and Scotland which also need direct support and recognition from WMF, in addition to the support given through Chapters. The support I request here is not financial, it's about recognition and equal status.

I request that this snub by WLM be looked at thoroughly at the highest level. The English Wikipedia has accepted Scotland and Wales as countries / nations for years (see the Talk page: Wales is indeed a country), and other projects such as Wikidata and Commons need to follow suit. My second request is to WMF: to accept, once and for all, that yes - Wales and Scotland are nations. This would put an end to inconsistency across our projects, and the continual bickering and faux pas made by editors who do not understand the situation in the countries which make up the UK.

This I write as an individual, an editor, and these are my own personal views, not my employer's. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the definition of country, it's just an organisational structure like another. The job of the international team is difficult enough with dozens of local contests to handle, without multiplying the avenues for any given geography to take part in the global contest.
Besides, there was a lot of discussion with many diverging views and no clear consensus to change the international WLM structure, so it's hard to blame the international team. I also can't find any argument on why it's impossible for Wales and Scotland to participate through WLM-UK. I only see a marketing point, that brands in Wales generally avoid including "UK"; but this is easily solved by advertising WLM without any "UK" specification (it's superfluous, since one can only participate through a single contest anyway). --Nemo 07:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You therefore disagree with @Effeietsanders: when he says We use the UN(ESCO) membership as the basis from which we work. Interesting!
I don't blame the team, but I do think their outcome is a snub to both Wales and Scotland (and other countries).
On your last point, as I said in the 2017 Talk page:
Can you honestly imagine Gareth Bale and his team-mates winning the first round of the FIFA World Cup, and the second round, the quarter-finals and the semi-final, only to be told "You can't play in the final!" And what race-horse would start a race it knows it is not allowed to cross the winning line? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, any sport reference is completely lost on me, can you clarify your point? Is it about the chances to win a prize the international contest? --Nemo 07:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Their organising committee have made a decision for how they wish to run their competition based on how they developed their criteria, and it is at a larger level of United Kingdom. For their competition, they should be able to make their rules, and it seems like they have considered your viewpoint, just not concurred with it. You have the opportunity to compete within the UK, and that it is not at a nationalist level, is what it is; it seems a little case of w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Llywelyn2000: I don't get your point either. The United Kingdom is a member of UNESCO and Scotland and Wales are two of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. You seem to be suggesting that the other two have some privilege that is lacking for Scotland and Wales? --ScottDavis (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    Having seen some of the other conversations at WD, I believe that the desire is for this to be conducted at the level of Wales as a country, rather than at the level of United Kingdom as a country; without particular interest for the other constituent countries.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What a shame. I have already taken over 300 photos which I had intended to upload at the beginning of September & I have made arrangements to stay with family and friends in some towns which have large numbers of unphotographed listed buildings over the next 6 weeks. As I cannot contribute to any project that denies the existence of my country, and by extension belittles my existence, I will no longer be taking part in the project. AlwynapHuw (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@AlwynapHuw: No one is denying that Wales exists: it's just a constituent of the UK which is a sovereign state. Just like how Alabama or Zanzibar aren't separate entities for the purposes of this contest but certainly do exist in a real sense. No one is being "snubbed" or "denied". We hope that you will choose to participate and share your media for the world's betterment. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Justin but insulting my nation is not "for the world's betterment". As far as historic monuments are concerned, they are not curated by the UK as a "sovereign nation" but are curated by four distinct national bodies: NI Department for Communities, English Heritage, Historic Scotland and Cadw; an organisational reality that should be recognised and respected AlwynapHuw (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@AlwynapHuw: I sincerely wish that no one felt slighted but (and England? Northern Ireland?) alongside states, wouldn't that be a slap in the face to West Papuans and Blackfoots? They are certainly nations and no one is denying their unique history as a people; they are just not a sovereign nation-state (even if they could or should be or were in the past). —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: My request does not mention Irish, West Papuans or Blackfoots: it pertains to Wales and Scotland only. Please start another thread for any other countries, as their histories are completely different.
@Nemo bis: Re: any sport reference is completely lost on me, can you clarify your point? - Obviously, you haven't read my link to the previous conversation. See here. To clarify: the suggestion is that we take part separately as individual countries (Wales, England, Scotland...), but then, once these images have been judged by a 'UK' panel - only the best 10 images from the 'UK' are allowed to enter the finals, the international competition. That is a snub. We are allowed to start, but not to finish. Luxemburg can go on to the finals, but not Wales! We really need inclusive competitions which inspire more photographs, not slow down the ongoing momentum we have created in Wales today (as noted by Jimmy Wales in his speech at this year's Wikimania). Alwyn, above, has confirmed that this decision will do more harm than good. Let's all be inclusive, open and respectful of diversity, please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: This is exactly the problem: you didn't mention anyone else. What you are proposing is an endless parade of Abkhaz to Zulu editors who can rightly claim, "I belong to a distinct nation". They aren't being snubbed—they just aren't represented by a nation state. Even the histories of Scotland and Wales are distinct—e.g. the latter has had no system of independent law for almost a millennium. So rather than have an interminable stream of editors who want their ethnic groups or regions to be uniquely highlighted, we are sticking to a list of sovereign states (which Scotland and Wales are not, just like Catalonia or Lower Saxony). —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You have failed to answer any of the reasons I have given as to why Wales and Scotland should be allowed to participate in the international competition; only attempted distraction. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, the problem with such a proposal is that it doesn't explain how Scottish or Welsh photographers would be helped by such a double layer. If the point is to have a local jury which has some say on what photos are sent to the international jury, that's easily solved by discussing with the WLM-UK organisation. Or is the point just to have "Wales" listed alongside "England" in a list of WLM geographies while WLM actually continues being organised exactly in the same way (with a UK-wide jury and UK-wide lists)? --Nemo 19:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: Scotland and Wales are subnational entities; they are not states. Therefore, they do not have any independence in this competition from the United Kingdom (just like they don't politically in real life). This isn't hard to understand; you're just being intransigent about these pet projects of yours. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Justin your disparaging comments such as Wales is "just" a constituent of the UK, imagine if we were to "elevate" Scotland and Wales, Scotland and Wales are "subnational" entities don't help your argument they just add insult to injury and ignore the political reality of monuments in the UK. Politically, in real life, Wales and Scotland do have some independence. Part of that independence is that Wales has a National (not regional) Assembly. Part of our National Assembly's remit is to govern and care for our national monuments. It is absolutely laughable that a project that aims to encourage people to take photographs of listed buildings ignores the structures of governance for the care of those buildings. UK law says that places such as Conwy Castle are Welsh National Monuments, but "Wiki Loves Monuments" knows better! Are you really unable to perceive how patronising and insulting such an attitude is? AlwynapHuw (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@AlwynapHuw: Yes. There's nothing wrong with being a subnational entity--it's in no way a slight; it's just a reality. Wales has some autonomy that has been devolved to it by the central UK government. It is not independent. Just like Alaska in the United States or Bahia in Brazil. Wales' government exists solely because Parliament says so. If they say not so, it won't (cf. Northern Ireland). That is not true of the United Kingdom or Malawi or Bhutan; hence, they are not the same type of entity. We cannot police how ~200 states choose to register monuments and why would we? Instead, we have each independent state competing as a separate entity, so Oecusse isn't competing separate from Timor-Leste and everyone from Boquerón adds their photos alongside their fellow compatriots in Paraguay. Are you suggesting for this photo contest we should 1.) investigate the national standards for every state and determine how they categorize monuments (in which case, that would be functionally impossible and mammoth overhead for virtually no pay-off); 2.) that we create all manner of subnational contests for every distinct ethnic group, administrative subdivision, and natural landform; or 3.) that we make a special allowance only for Scotland and Wales? If it's the latter, please explain why the Scottish and Welsh peoples deserve some special treatment that Afro-Abkhazians don't deserve... —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, Alwyn!
@Nemo bis: re double layer - That is not a problem; the images would be judge by a Welsh panel, the winning 10 goes would enter the international competition. Same with England, same with Scotland. No problem! This is no problem for other countries: all have 10 images going through. I feel I've repeated, repeated, repeated this over the last 10 months, and going nowhere. What's difficult to understand? Each country submits 10 images, Wales is a country and therefore should submit 10 images. End of.
@Koavf: / Justin - "subnational entities" - what?!!!! Citation needed! I have several times (see the main discussion [[] here) said that citation to neutral, academic, sources should be the deciding factor. All of them state that Wales is a country. Let me repeat what I have said, as its obvious that you have not read the discussion, here are some of the modern sources; should you wish I'll also list a list of 100 books which state that Wales is a country:
Arriva Trains Wales, Arriva Buses Wales, NHS Wales, the Government of Wales, the National Library of Wales, the National Museum of Wales, the 'Bank of Wales, BBC Cymru Wales, ITV Cymru Wales, a Wales national football team (NOT UK!), Stagecoach South Wales, Trade Centre Wales, Welsh Water...
And, as I say, please cite any reference to Wales being a 'sub-nation'!!! Facts, sources, please, not political waffle.
Re: (Scotland and Wales) do not have any independence in this competition from the United Kingdom - 'independence' is not a criteria: please read the interim decision for this year written by @Effeietsanders: in the above link. 'Independence' isn't mentioned. Having said that, I agree with Alwyn, as would everybody else who know anything about Wales, that yes we do have the independence to raise taxes, create our own laws etc, so please do your homework before making incorrect statements. And, yes, as far as monuments are concerned the English government (what is sometimes called 'the UK Government') is not responsible for our monuments! They come under the care of the Welsh Government. My 'pet project' as you call it is Wales - to open doors, inspire free and open knowledge on the Wikimedia projects in Wales, hence my request.
Justin: you are now stating that the elibility for WLM is to be a state? If so, please change all references to 'countries' -as there is one hell of a difference! As it stands, using ther word 'countries' is very misleading!
So far, not one bona fide argument has been offered which contests or disproves the above three statements which I listed in my opening gambit. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: To be in UNESCO, you must be a state and we use the UNESCO list. Therefore, you have to be a state. If you would like to lobby UNESCO to admit Scotland and Kashmir and Western Australia, you are free to do that but it won't happen and they aren't reading this talk page. Clearly, the problem is that the UK uses the word "country" in a peculiar way and you know this and are using it for a semantic game. Similarly, in the United States we have "states" which are not sovereign states like Japan or Panama but appealing to this linguistic quirk to lobby for Hawaiʻi to be considered separate from the rest of America is patently absurd. Wales is not a country in the conventional sense of the term: a sovereign state like Belgium or Jamaica. It is a "country" that makes up the sovereign state (i.e. country) of the United Kingdom. Of course, you know all of this and are just playing a game here. Scotland is a part of a larger sovereign entity--sure it has a government and can raise taxes; the same is true of Indianapolis. When my hometown is admitted to UNESCO, then we can talk. Why are you not also suggesting that England or Northern Ireland be considered separately for this contest as well? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: has worked his socks off trying to persuade contributors to Wicipedia Cymraeg to contribute to this project. I have no interest in winning any prizes, but I was persuaded by Robin to take part in the project in order to increase Wales' profile on "Wiki Loves Monuments". It is clear that you and your supporters are opposed to Wales existing within the project, for British Nationalist political reasons, so I wont be contributing and I'm sure that others who were also persuaded by Robin wont be taking part either. You've won, but the project has lost. Good luck in finding Brit Nats who will be able to find and gain access to monuments in rural Wales on private lands. Its clear that my contribution is considered unworthy so I won't be contributing. And that is my final word on the matter, as I wont be contributing any more to this biased, insulting and anti-Welsh conversation either. For a project that is supposed to be collaborative it has a number of contributors who seem to be more interested in peeving other potential collaborators. What a sad state of affairs where people are basically told to p**s off from Wikimedia because they belong to the "wrong sort of country" (Mae'n Americanwr, sy'n enwog am greu tafferthion, ac yn gwybod dim am gyfansoddiad y DU, yn ôl pob tebyg)AlwynapHuw (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@AlwynapHuw: "gyfansoddiad y DU"? Or the lack thereof... I made the position clear and asked you a direct question. You chose to not answer and willfully misconstrue it expressly in order to take offense. Pa mor drist ydych chi'n amddifadu'r byd o ddiwylliant am ddim oherwydd eich balchder anghywir. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood, but I was commenting «take part separately [...] judged by a 'UK' panel». If that is your proposal, you can just agree with WLM-UK on how to organise the jury process. The proposal that Wales just sends 10 photos to the international competition on its own has been already thoroughly addressed; I only add that it is, for now, a solution in search of a problem, so I'd like to hear how it would help photographers from Wales. --Nemo 07:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me explain my experience organizing WLM for Amical in previous years. It was focused on areas of interest of users from overlapping other WLM teams. From a Wikimedian POV, local teams can reach other participants and sponsors, and all eforts sum in common interest of the project. You can set local prizes and localized messages to encourage participants. But you need to discuss it with WLM-UK. We are Wikimedians and all teams have the same objective. You can discuss how to select the finalists, how to form the jury or whatever you consider relevant. At the end, this is not a question for the international team but an agreement between local teams involved. --Vriullop (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Justin (koavf) - I understand what Wales is and what Wales isn't since I was 5 years old. Thanks for the lesson!
Nemo and Vriullop. As I've said already, I write here, not as an employee, but as an editor, an individual. I've been the Wikimedia UK Manager for Wales for around 5 years. It doesn't look like you (Nemo and Vriullop) have followed the discussion fully. Let me explain. Wikimedia UK is a Chapter and has organised the running of WLM within the UK on four occasions (2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017). Last year, the WLM international team did not allow the 10 winning photos from Wales (judged by our own panel) to go through to the international competition. I immediately requested to that this year Wales could do so. [Please read the discussions before replying (the 1st thread)]: Commons:Talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 winners. It took 10 months for them to come to a decision. They refused. What I requested was for Wales to participate as a 'country', as it is a competitions for 'countries' (NOT UN(ESCO) / sovereign States). That means we would organise the judging panel, inspire editors / photographers and the 10 best photographs would go forward at the international level: just like Luxemburg, Germany, Liechtenstein, Malta... This also means that England and Scotland would do the same. It is my strong belief that more photographs would result and that an 'England' group would be formed to organise the events in England (or WMUK would continue to do so). There is a group in Scotland, the Gallic User Group which, I believe would organise within Scotland and we have a Wikimedia Community User Group in Wales to do so. Each of these nations would organise and submit their own top-10 directly to the final at the international panel. Wikimedia UK has always supported work in both Scotland and Wales, and I'm sure would continue to do so, should it be needed.
If there is a rule which states that only Chapters are allowed to organise, then that rule needs to change: it's offensive. @Effeietsanders: please publish the rules openly, and let us know if this is correct.
Vriullop - 'local' (your word) branding was done last year in Wales, giving the competition a Welsh flavour, and 'local' prizes were given (by Wikimedia UK) to each nation (my word), and the work was done in complete harmony. But when we discussed continuing into the next round, the final international round, we were refused (as were the Basque Country and Catalonia). This year, the 3 WMUK panel members from England will continue to judge the UK Competition, and this year Scotland and Wales have been asked to nominate one person to that panel.
Suggested criteria - Let me answer the above remarks where it has been pointed out that a number of ethnic groups would, as a result, also like to follow suit, and claim that they too are a 'country'. Instead of the present criteria (UN(ESCO) membership) I recommended the following:
1. Has there been a request from a group of editors / Wikimedians / Wikimedia User group in that territory to be included?
2. Does the territory have a long history of having been a country at any time?
3. Is there a corpus of neutral, academic, solid sources which calls them a 'country' or a 'nation'?
If "yes", then let them in! Be inclusive! Respect them the rich diversity that makes up Wikimedia! As far as Wales and Scotland is concerned, it's "yes!" to all three. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think your proposed criteria have nothing to do with our mission, which is to expand free knowledge. We are not in the business of deciding or promoting what is a "country" or not. Additionally, I still don't see any explanation of how this proposed system for WLM would help photographers in Wales or anyone. --Nemo 18:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think your proposed criteria (acceptence of UN(ESCO) definition) has nothing to do with our mission, which is to expand free knowledge. We are not in the business of deciding or promoting what is a "UN(ESCO)" member or not.
What criteria does UN(ESCO) use before accepting a country into it's membership? Did WLM discuss these, or just accept them point blank, with no discussion about diversity, sources and how to include Wikipedians rather than offend them? Of course we need to accept one criterium or the other - or a totally different criteria, but let us base these on sources, not ignorance.
Your second sentence: I have listed above, in bold formatting, a number of companies, institutions and bodies in Wales which used the word 'Wales' in their names, and have rebranded as being 'Welsh', 'Wales' and not 'UK'. Why do you think that is? Why on earth would they spend millions of pounds to show their pride in being Welsh and rooted in this land called Wales? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There are many possible reasons for Wales, most of which will have nothing to do with Wikimedia's mission. So, given you seem to know, please just tell us what reason reflects Wikimedia's mission. (Also, hadn't you said that the "branding" part had already been solved last year?) --Nemo 19:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment some come here with their nationalist hats on, ready and ripe for a nationalist's argument. We are unable to resolve the arguments that happen in your countries. Expecting us to be the point of resolution, or to pick a side, is unfair and unreasonable. If we split, we can have the UK-nationalists here, we can have Brexit or anti-Brexit. These are tensions that exist within your countries and we not should be taking sides. A set of criteria was developed based on an international standard set; you put your position to the committee that drew up that criteria, and it seems they took ten months evaluating it and declining to adjust. Your countries are able to participate, and so are you. You can protest that by participating in it or not, that is your choice. Politicising that for an argumentative and extensive debate here is not polite, I invite you to develop an RFC and continue your discussion that way.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
billinghurst - Re: We are unable to resolve the arguments that happen in your countries. What arguments? I have asked nothing of the sort! I have asked other things relevant to Wikimedia: alternative criteria based on sources, respect of diversity, minorities and openness. And why on earth bring in your nationalist agenda - Brexit - into Wikimedia matters?! Brexit was thrown into the sack by the English Government, not the Welsh Government! Please stick to matters relevant to this thread.
Re: we should not be taking of sides - you are taking sides! You are backing the status quo which is against diversity, minorities and free thinking, and doing nothing is taking sides. That is equally as 'nationalistic'. As for 'politeness' - I am absolutely gobsmacked! Where in any of my writing have I been impolite? Or is requesting a change in the criteria used in organising Wiki Loves Monuments an impolite thing to do? I am offended, please retract. argumentative and extensive debate - I have tried to gather information about the rules of WLM (still not received), stated my case, and others (such as yourself) have argued against it. I can't see how that is impolite. Are you against forums such as these, or only when you disagree with the user?
I thank you for the invitation to develop an RFC; what I'm doing here really here goes much further than that: into the crux of the Wikimedia Movement: to accept the unfair status quo or change it. It will be a level playing field when WMF give equal status to both Chapters and Community User Groups, to the minorities as well as the majorities, the haves and the have-nots.
Your countries are able to participate - no! We can not participate in the international competition! Please read Alwyn's comments above: he (and others) will not participate this year under 'Wales', only to be then gobbled up, at the last post, under the 'UK' banner. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
No, we are not taking sides: we just adopt the existing international infrastructure for cultural heritage. We don't say or imply anything about the jurisdiction of Wales and we don't disadvantage users from Wales in any way compared to the hypothetical alternative. --Nemo 07:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: England has no government. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • comment I dont see a problem with having England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland as independent competitions as each regularly compete under that identity internationally any way. My only condition would be that they are independently run competitions and boundaries are well defined/known. Equally this argument could equally be about China/Hong Kong/Taiwan, WLM has been down the path of political boundaries before with other competitions the condition was that an entry is submitted/eligible in one competition only despite overlap in territorial claims. Overall when you consider that WMUK had 14,000 images the dividing of this or other similar sized competitions into recognised smaller sections isnt a big problem, I think it will draw even greater participation. Gnangarra (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "[]" Categories: Hidden category:

Navigation menu

Personal tools







      Beyond the Web



      In other languages

        Add links