From Wikiversity

Install Extension:Translate[edit]

Hi, please let me know the detailed steps to have Extension:Translate installed on this Wiki, if a vote must happen, where and how should I launch it? --Psychoslave (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello I am in favor would be of great help (installation request will then be made on phabricator:), however, it is possible that no one has responded? --Samuele2002 (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crochet.david What do you think? Two opinions are not sufficient to make the request. As for the extension I'm translations administrator on Meta and Wikispeicies so I know how it works and I would be willing to rearrange the pages to the extension (Page X/en should be moved to X prepared and marked for translation (+Tag translate etc ....) and then with Special:PageMigration connect the various language versions to eN). Of course they will make any change but nothing excessive. (But will in most cases remove the base page to allow the moving sub page in English so I could use the flag of admin to do all these tasks. In anticipation of this, and still my desire to help out more here I request here to be Custodianship. --Samuele2002 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crochet.david? --Samuele2002 (Chiedi pure!) 20:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For make changing the configuration of betawikiversity, a vote is need. knowing that the extension needing is for betawikiversity and not for a specific language, because the day the project will be independent, the extension installed will no longer serve. So the question is : is the extension used for betawikiversity or is it used for the Esperanto section ? Crochet.david (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I favor the installation of the extension for the project not for a Esperanto section for translate pages help, guidelines and replace those esistensi because right now there is not an order, then it is very hindered reading guidelines from introductory texts pretty basic page. --Samuele2002 (Chiedi pure!) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Support If possibilities are open. Why Can we not installed it.--Jayprakash (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support this proposal.
Vito Genovese 14:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request on Phabricator --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 21:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I inform you that I will start to move subpages translated the tiny initial pages (eg /It ->/it /Fr -> /fr) to make them compatible with the extension translate. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 13:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick question: Are we going to keep a central main page in English and the translations thereof provided by the Translate extension? Or are we going to keep our independent main pages?
Vito Genovese 13:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vito Genovese: I say we put the page in English as the primary and the other subpages of it and dependent on it or we do not understand anything. In fact, then I will move the subpage in English on the main page by deleting the contents of it (eg Wikiversity:About/En move to Wikiversity:About after deleting the content Wikiversity:About). --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 14:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Main page may be specific language indication (before independant) but after creation of the specific wikiversity, the main page may be similar. How to handle this with the translation extension ? Crochet.david (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have visited several WMF wikis where Translate is enabled, and have not come across a single wiki where the Translate is used for the Main Page. Come to think of it, each language project that we host here has varying qualities, and having a uniform main page is not the best idea.
I think we should be conservative about the use of Translate, and tag pages sparingly. Even though I am a fan of the extension, I believe it could get out of hand, and make everything English-centric around here. {{Browse}} has allowed us NOT to recognize a default language for Beta, and Translate might change that.
Vito Genovese 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that using {{ Browse}} reading pages is made difficult because they are sub-pages and is not immediately reach them from the home page given. They may at this point with this method at the end of the various subpages have in almost all cases the usual content. If you see incubator even there the extension for the pages is used. Yes have a page in a specific language to be used in the future Wikiversity think it is important but this would not be limited extension Tranlsate because anyway we should follow the criteria for when to mark a page as to translate it or not. However, a translated page is not necessarily the base page is in English can be in any language supported by the extension. And I would say that the service pages that will serve in the new Wikiversity should be like subpage of CODE LANGUAGE/Wikiversity in the local language: PAGENAME as is done on incubator and also because then the next export to the new Wikiversity along with this I would feel it would be easier what do you think if you follow the Incubator model that is to have all the pages in a language as subpages language code as it is one of the failings alleged during the closure proposal beta.Wikiversity. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 10:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samuele2002: I agree with you on the unpracticality of {{Browse}}, which I had mentioned while writing my previous post, but apparently removed before posting it. You are also right about the possibility of translating source pages in other languages, but it should be quite rare, since English is the only true lingua franca of our age. Anyway, let's wait for the folks at Phabricator to enable it, and see how the experience will go.
Vito Genovese 11:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The extension is installed now will take a while 'to get ready to mark pages for translation. if someone wants to help is welcome :) --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 23:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I changed my rights. If anybody objections on it. Please informe me.--Jayprakash (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to help, if that's alright. Let's get busy! :)
Vito Genovese 06:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Crochet.david you assign the flag of translation administrator to Vito Genovese. I recommend you wait to mark a page as to translate the meantime moved subpages are translated to lower case as marking a page as to translate the sub-pages in different languages ​​become unchangeable. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 12:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please you see mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation administration --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 12:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samuele2002: Sure, just tell us when you are done. By the way, "translation administrator" can be assigned by admins as well. See Special:UserRights/Vito_Genovese for instance. :)
Vito Genovese 13:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vito Genovese: No administrators can only add and remove yourself as a translation administrator but can not add or remove it to other users. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 19:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samuele2002:: Thank you. :) I realized it after posting the above message, but a little too late. :)
Vito Genovese 19:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 19:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! I notice that the current logo has the "dome" sort of facing down, as if it were a giant sphere rising from behind the building, rather than a dome sitting on top of the building. Therefore, I propose a new version of the logo (created by Julian Herzog). This new version also has the gradients removed, because they don't really add anything here. What do you think? Any support? Any objections? --Sophivorus (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Support Excellent work! A great improvement :) --Joseraeiro (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support I really like the logo --Samuele2002 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Better if the thickness of the line of latitude is the same as the line of longitude. Crochet.david (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crochet.david: Julian Herzog updated the logo making the lines of the same thickness. Is it ok now? --Sophivorus (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support SupportCrochet.david (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support Support. At last! It would be a significant improvement at any rate. --pegasovagante (tell me) 08:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Support I think it'll be way better with the horizontal lines more light blue, not dark... --Martinligabue (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see dark line ? Crochet.david (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support --M.shady (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I inform you that the community of it.wikiversity (including Martinligabue and pegasovagante) supports the new logo --Samuele2002 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support -Jayprakash (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support but with one change I would like to see more of the WMF blue–green–red color scheme. Maybe just change it to look like "Wikiversity"? Or if you really want to be ambitious, make stripes in the globe red and green? What does everyone else think? Koavf (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, the logo has many elements so there are many ways to color it, of which coloring the words or the stripes are just two. Reaching consensus on a colored version of the logo will be very difficult, and there's no need for it, so I'm currently against adding color. --Sophivorus (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can not change so much a meta community decision ? Crochet.david (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crochet.david: Of course we can. en.wikt changed their logo about four months ago. Koavf (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not because one do it that all can do it. Crochet.david (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have to leave only blue --Samuele2002 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This decision will change at least 15 logos. Betawikiversity is not the place for. It is on metawiki that this decision must be taken.Crochet.david (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support --Atcovi (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support Cleaner and nicer. Amqui (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support --Thierry613 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support --Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry if it's late, but I also Support Support the new logo. The principle "Keep It Simple" is a must when it comes to a logo. --Zerabat (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it's been a month and there's nothing but support, so I think that counts as consensus. I just contacted Julian Herzog to see if he can do some localized versions of the logo so that we can request the replacements at Phabricator. Let me know if anyone knows of any better way to deploy the logo. Thanks for participating! --Sophivorus (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, I think I've done the whole bunch. See File:Wikiversity logo 2017.svg for the version without text, the others are all linked as other versions there. I have used Gill Sans bold as the font since that appears to be the Wikimedia guideline. Please check if they look ok, especially but not exclusively the ones that do not use the Latin alphabet as I had to improvise somewhat for these and as I am not very familiar especially with the Korean and Japanese symbols. Also, thank you for the friendly and constructive comments! --Julian Herzog (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Julian! I compared one by one the text of your logos with those of the current logos. They all look perfect. However, I noticed that the German and Japanese Wikiversities both have their current logos with English text, rather than their own languages. Therefore, I'm thinking on requesting that those logos are updated to the English version, rather than the localized versions. If those communities then want to update their logos to the localized versions, they can start a Phabricator task for it. Any thoughts? --Sophivorus (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I agree, I just thought I'd give them the option to choose which version they want to use. --Julian Herzog (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I requested the update of the logo, check phab:T160491 and subscribe! --Sophivorus (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But, why in new logo have only one color?? With blue gradation was better.. --— Green Zero обг 20:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new logo has been deployed on all Wikiversities. Thanks everyone!!! --Sophivorus (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks :) --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review[edit]


A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc. ) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MarcoAurelio, I've created a request for the removal of my admin right on meta, thanks! Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vito Genovese: @Jayprakash12345: @Crochet.david: How about making a policy with removal criteria of the flag of admin? It is now high time that beta.wikiversity has their own policy. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 07:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think 1 year is Sufficient to remove inactive Users Admin Flag.--Jayprakash (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also I think 1 year is sufficient --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 12:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vito Genovese 12:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The default rule is two years. It is metawiki that manages the follow-up. To do our own rule is also to follow up on it. Are you thinking about it? Stewards have a good tracking tool. 1 year or 2 years, is this really important for us to apply a rule? Crochet.david (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly not important. Would not cause a burden either. Using something like this would to the trick (the date parameter can be kept up-to-date with parser functions). Either way is fine with me.
Vito Genovese 22:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing to consider is that beta.Wikiversity is a multilingual project and therefore should have dele autonomous rules without using the Meta rules. Also to give signs of a vibrant community and having the policies decided by the community of beta.Wikiversity. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 10:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is virtually no need for a policy deviating from the admin activity review. I am opposed to the idea to establish a local policy. --Vogone (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed. Matiia (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matiia Thanks --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April and 3 May[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing News #1—2017[edit]

18:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Add user groups to Autopatrollers and Rollbackers[edit]

I propose to add two user groups: Autopatrollers and Rollbackers both groups are used in so many wikis and are very useful.

Autopatrollers Rights:

  • autopatrol

Rollbackers Rights:

  • autopatrol
  • rolback

Both groups can be added and removed by administrators. What do you think? - Samuele2002 (Talk!) 11:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not. Crochet.david (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Upgrading Quiz extension[edit]

Quiz extension is currently being upgraded while the bugs are begin fixed.Some features that were requested on Extension_talk:Quiz needs community consensus.

1.Upgrading feedback to be conditional.Currently feedback is shown for all questions in quiz and for all proposals/answer. More information at Phabricator - T166931

2.Color scheme for wrong and correct answers.Currently if a question is unanswered or incorrectly answered, the right and wrong options both are highlighted in same color(i.e red). It has been reported at Link and Help_talk:Quiz. The color scheme can be changed or the correct proposals/answers can be highlighted in green. More information at Phabricator - T165387