Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2017/May

Indentation
Hello again, I don't understand indentation and this example illustrates. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:PeterEasthope/sandbox

Appears that each tab character is converted to blanks but what is the recipe? Why do more tabs produce less indentation on some lines? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I would recommend avoiding tabs in wiki markup. The mechanism provided for indentation in wiki markup uses printable ascii characters at the beginning of the markup line; colon for a unit of indentation, * for an indented item with a bullet, # for an indented item with a number.  I recommend against ever starting a line with a blank, as it causes the line to be typeset weirdly (using fixed-width, aka "typewriter", font).  Btw, for a link to a page, use wiki markup:  double square brackets with the name of the page inside, in this case
 * which produces
 * User:PeterEasthope/sandbox
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will aim to use colons.


 * "... recommend against ever starting a line with a blank, as it causes the line to be typeset weirdly (using fixed-width, aka "typewriter", font)."


 * In https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting the first table, has "Start each line with a space. Text is preformatted and markups can be done." That's what I need.  &#60;span&#62; ... &#60;/span&#62; allows styling with color, bold, italic and etc.  As you suggest, the typwriter style is unwanted. If &#60;pre&#62; ... &#60;/pre&#62; is used, rather than beginning each line with " ", markup in the span is ignored.  Then how can styles be varied without reformatting?


 * Is an EBNF specification of MediaWiki markup available?


 * Thanks again,      ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Italics and boldface are wicked easy in wiki markup (heh; can you tell I grew up near Boston?). Two single quotes start or stop italics, three start or stop boldface, five toggle both.  For color, use color.  We don't use explicit html if we can possibly avoid it.  The closest thing I see, off hand, to a guide to wiki markup is w:Help:Wiki markup, but I'm rather disappointed by it; it seems to make wiki markup sound enormously more difficult than it is.  Wiki markup is, when you get down to it, the reason the wikis succeeded and continue to succeed, an extraordinarily easy-for-humans markup language (I could say more, but, trying not to turn this into an essay...) &mdash; and the Foundation has managed to hypnotize itself collectively into making massive investments in undermining and avoiding wiki markup.  More than ten years ago, my sources tell me, the WMF was told (I'm simplifying) that for the long-term expansion of the wikimedian movement they needed to formally define precisely how wiki markup works, so that computers could freely use the output of the human-driven wikis.  That could have worked magnificently but, alas, whatever people/forces/whatever drove the technical decisions of the Foundation failed to grok the key role of wiki markup, with the result that the Foundation's efforts over its existence have damaged both the sisterhood and Foundation-community relations.  So here we are.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The best way I know to specify a formal language is by a table comprising two columns. The left column contains syntax in EBNF.  The right contains semantic notes.


 * Now I have markup for indentation, color, bold and italics. What about preserving extant format?  An alternative to  ...  ?  Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hm. Actually, now that you mention it, I don't recall any other way to do that.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I found a way of handling format, not requiring &#60;pre> or anything similar. Another small problem solved, thanks.  I also want to understand better how indentation works on the HTML side.  The page is peppered with &#60;dl> tags which must represent the indentation.  How?  Is there a related style definition?  If so, where?  Thanks again, PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for CSS, there's some at MediaWiki:Common.css. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why exclude almost all scientists from Wikibooks ?
This question is currently under discussion on Wikibooks talk:Ownership. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an absurd characterization of the issue you are agitating about. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the answer of Justin above : @Thierry Dugnolle: Then yes, I think there will inherently be problems with posting work here. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

.

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.''

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2017 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 1 to 23:59 UTC May 14. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2017 Board of Trustees election page on Meta-Wiki.

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

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery • Translate • Get help 19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to Computer Information Systems
I just wanted to let the community know that I have a class coming to Wikibooks to work on Introduction to Computer Information Systems for the next five weeks. If you find any issues with their efforts, please let me know and I can work with them during class to address any concerns. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good news. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View
From May 9, the Two Column Edit Conflict View will be available as a beta feature on all wikis. The Two Column Edit Conflict View is a new interface for the edit conflict resolution page. It highlights differences between the editor's and the conflicting changes to make it easy to copy and paste pieces of the text and resolve the conflict. The feature fulfils a request for a more user-friendly edit conflict resolution from the German Community’s Technical Wishlist. Everyone is invited to test the feature and we hope that it will serve you well! Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikibooks for everyone
Wikibooks for everyone exposes my personal view of what Wikibooks should be. I hope you will read it and think about it. It's short. Next week I will try to modify the official pages, add new ones and participate in the discussions as long as they are not too sterile. Parts of WB for everyone have already been published in WB:RFA.--Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Mainspace is not a place for a policy, if that's what you're trying to create.
 * You seem to be saying that since your proposal is not gaining traction here, you plan to modify our policy pages. That would not be appropriate behavior on your part.
 * It's not surprising your proposal isn't gaining traction. It both violates the core philosophy of the project, pervading large parts of our infrastructure; and also violates our explicit basic policy against using the project as a web host, a policy that exists pretty much specifically to prevent what you are advocating.  The thing you want to do does not fit at English Wikibooks; please stop trying to force it on us by volume.
 * As I have mentioned before, "WB:RFA" is not a shortcut to your page.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If this means that I shall not work on the help pages, it's OK with me. I have already plenty of work. And now that my book User:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone is written I did almost all I wanted to do. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If this means that I shall not work on the help pages, it's OK with me. I have already plenty of work. And now that my book User:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone is written I did almost all I wanted to do. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there responsible authors in the english-speaking Wikibooks community ?
A new rule about authorship and responsibility is under discussion : Respect for authors. TD (discuss • contribs)

The new rule comes from the french-speaking Wikibooks community. But it is not a french invasion.

A responsible author is an author who thinks that he or she is responsible for the book, and that he or she has the right to refuse unwanted modifications, because the book is the product of his or her work. If other authors give additions, and if these additions are accepted by the responsible author, he or she is still the sole responsible for the book, except if he or she decides to give up a part of the responsibility. For more precisions, see Respect for authors.

Am I the sole english-speaking (badly) responsible author in the community ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 10:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody has a fundamental right to be "the" authority on a book. It's not uncommon for a book to have one person writing it, and it's just common sense that someone else doesn't barge in and mess up someone else's work; if they can't find a way to cooperate they ought to fork the book so they can pursue their different and incompatible visions.  Adopting an abandoned book is also something one does carefully and thoughtfully.  But this is all very, very different from having someone whose right to the book is built in, as a formal relationship to the book.  There are infinite variations possible on the sometimes-subtle question of who is the active contributing community of a book; you are proposing instead to create a special responsible author status, fundamentally separate from the existing spectrum and with institutionalized right of control, contrary to the spirit of positive cooperation and collaboration we have always tried to nurture here.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think my proposition is contrary to the spirit of cooperation and collaboration the community nurtured here.
 * Do you think that I will convince many scientists to work with us, if I say to them that they won't have the right to refuse unwanted modifications of their textbooks ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an example of what I mean by trying to bias the discussion by insisting on your conceptual framework. This pattern occurs commonly in lunatic-fringe politics:  "How many X must suffer Y before Z", where there may in fact be no actual examples of an X suffering Y, and if there are it may have nothing to do with Z.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That I try to convince scientists to write their textbooks as wikibooks is not hypothetical. I want to spend my life working on Wikibooks because I think it will be the best scientific library in the world. How will we do that if scientists don't want to work with us ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But why would someone want to post a textbook here if he is fundamentally opposed to changes to it? Everyone here is against vandalism and anyone can have an account to monitor changes, so the assumption is that if you just have enough eyes on the project, it will work out okay. If you don't believe in those ideas (or if the community itself is insufficient to realize them) then I don't know why someone would choose Wikibooks in the first place. Can you elaborate a little? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To refuse unwanted modifications is not to be fundamentally opposed to changes to it. Authors on Wikibooks want their books to be modified and criticized. Otherwise they would not write on Wikibooks. I want my readers to change my books, because it would tell me what they think, and because their changes could be useful. But I want to have the right to refuse their modifications if I don't like them. Am I wrong ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But why are they "unwanted"? Is it because they are genuinely bad--inaccurate, vandalism, unintelligible, redundant, etc.--or just because you don't like them? If they are bad edits, then anyone can undo them and if there is a sufficiently large community, someone will. If they are just edits that you don't like, then you can propose an alternative just like I could. Can you give me a more concrete example of a change that you would want to undo with these elevated author's rights? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That I don't like it is a sufficient reason.--Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot give you a concrete example, because noone never tried to modify my books, except minor corrections. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, before refusing a modification I will discuss it. If a reader honors me with his or her reaction to my book, I will be very interested, and I will want to talk. But discussions are fruitful only when participants respect the rules. I don't want to have to justify myself to someone who does not respect the rules. The best way to get rid of such a nuisance is to say : I refuse your modification of my work because I don't like it. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then yes, I think there will inherently be problems with posting work here. Wikibooks isn't for personal hosting. You can always keep a draft in your userspace, or you can generate a PDF version from your preferred revision which is far more stable, and as you pointed out, there simply isn't likely to be much in the way of edit-warring here for a variety of reasons. But there will never be an actual rule that grants someone ownership over the material here. Edit: Although, I will say that if you just want attribution, it is perfectly acceptable to have a subpage on primary authorship. Just not ownership. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ownership is not the same as control, every author on the wikibooks project retains ownership over their contributions they just license several rights away. The nature of that license does removes some degree of control from the authors but never ownership, unless specifically stated or the result of doing the contributive work as part of a "paid" job to a third party (that third party would retain the ownership). Panic (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To Justin and Panic: It seems you misrepresent me and you don't understand this discussion. I never talk about legal questions, only about the internal rules we need to work in satisfactory conditions.--Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I realize you're not talking about a legal change--I am not misconstruing you there. I'm saying that there is no prospect that we will adopt a rule that gives someone a kind of carte blanche veto for edits he dislikes. If that is your only reason for undoing an edit, then that is not a sufficient one. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion. I respect it. I encourage you to keep on working as you want, except if you want to prevent me from working as I want. You can vote on this subject : Wikibooks talk:Respect for authors--Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to formulate this in terms of "I don't like it" or "working as I want"? There is always some motivation behind a dislike, and -- assuming the authors have clear goals and welcome contributions -- it should be possible to express this motivation as a rationale grounded on how the change affects the book and the plans to further develop it, and therefore to justify the rejection. If the other participants are being "a nuisance" -- by refusing to justify their edits, engage in discussion or look for compromises, or by running roughshod over existing work, etc. -- they are already in the wrong by virtue of being a nuisance, and the authors do not need any form of de jure ultimate authority to point that out and revert the changes as necessary. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your question seems to call for a concrete answer, so I will do what I can, that is, talk about my experience.
 * I am the long-term maintainer of the Haskell Wikibook. That is a de facto position: no one appointed me or gave me permission. Once upon a time, I did a handful of edits under the guidance of a more experienced contributor; some time later, I returned to the book and started working on my own. Over the following years, I have written several new chapters and rewritten, reworked, reorganised and updated most of the remaining parts. I have plans for what the book should eventually look like, and they are slowly but steadily being put into practice. Whenever the opportunity shows up, I discuss these plans with people who become regular contributors or otherwise show a broader interest in the book, and gather their feedback about my ideas.
 * I keep a watchlist of book pages, so that I can review changes and respond to talk page messages. I liberally revert changes that I consider inappropriate, be it because of technical inaccuracies or because the changes are a poor fit for the structure and teaching strategies of the book. However, it happens just as often that I hold back from immediately rejecting a change that I didn't like at first glance, and then realise that my dislike was due to some irrelevant stylistic quibble, or that the change can be usefully accepted with a minor adjustment, or by moving it to a slightly different place in the book. Being committed to the open and collaborative nature of Wikibooks helps giving outside contributions a fair evaluation.
 * The Haskell Wikibook has a list of authors; it already existed before my time here. At some point, I added myself to it; later on, I included two other Wikibookians who contributed sizable amounts of original content. Am I a "responsible author"? I am inclined to say that I am, even though I don't see myself using such a title (when talking about the book elsewhere, I stick to "co-author" or "maintainer"). I don't think I am a "responsible author" under your definition, though... --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This sort of situation, where one person is &mdash; for a time &mdash; the primary caretaker of a book is not uncommon, I believe. I am currently somewhat in this position myself relative to Conlang.  It is a natural part of the continuous range of possible states for the current community of a book.  My sense is that this is not what was being proposed, in that it is a de facto situation, not an explicitly legislated arrangement.  I think it should remain de facto.  Anyone who writes a book is already in such a situation, and on the other hand that situation might change in fifty years, or in five years &mdash; or in five hours.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You work on the original kind of Wikibooks. If you don't want to have the right to refuse unwanted modifications on the books you work on, it's fine. I have no objection against that. The new rule does not prevent you from working the way you like. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course you are a responsible author, even if you are not under my definition. You can give to your responsibility the meaning you want. May be my terminology is not good, but I had to choose an expression to name the concept. If you think of a better expression, feel free to change it. We are at Wikibooks ! The responsibility you're talking about is not full individual responsibility but a kind of collective and diluted responsibility. When such a responsibility is sufficient to complete a book, it's wonderful, but too often books with such diluted responsibility remain unfinished. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My main point (and, I believe, of Pi Zero's comment as well) is that it is not at all clear that I would have become a long-term maintainer under the different social dynamics that would be in place if the Haskell Wikibook was a book of the second kind. Furthermore, it isn't clear either that the original authors of the book would have chosen the first kind without the strong project-wide commitment to open collaboration, as opposed to traditional authorship. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to continue the discussion about Wikibooks, Respect for authors but I don't find it. Is it somewhere ? TD (discuss • contribs)
 * I have remarked on this to you a number of times: WB:RFA is not, and never has been, a shortcut to your page. "RFA" stands for "Request For Adminship".  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why such a lie? You know very well, I wrote it explicitly, on a page of discussion that I do not find again, that I do not want to be administrator. TD (discuss • contribs)
 * If I understand well, finally, my false accusation against you comes from a misunderstanding. When you wrote that WB:RFA means Request for Adminship, I thought you accused me to be a kind of dictator. But this is not what you meant. You only meant that the shortcut was already taken. Am I right ? I'm sorry that I didn't understand, and I hope you will forgive me that I accused you falsely. --TD (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I only meant that the shortcut was already taken. You are right.  It was just a misunderstanding; entirely forgivable, and forgiven.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If all our disagreements end in a similar way, it will be better for you and me, and for everyone. Even if I make many mistakes, like our misunderstanding, I still think I'm a good verbal fighter. But such "fights" are not for my pleasure. I don't like when discussions become too conflictual. My intention is to convince with reason, not to be a dictator, or a wicked guy. When I am, it is against my true will. TD (discuss • contribs)
 * I think I see what happened. You used a template at the top of that page, in which you specify a shortcut.  But that doesn't create a shortcut; it produces a notice on the page saying that there is a shortcut.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know. I only copied and pasted the presentation of WB:OWN and thought it would work. I always work this way. I "steal" the skill of other users. But it's not a theft, and it's how Wikibooks works. TD (discuss • contribs)
 * That's a common way of doing things. With wiki markup, one of the important ways we learn how to do stuff is by seeing how others did it.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

 Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "". In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.



Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.



The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history. You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

 * A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools.  Go to Special:Preferences to enable the.
 * A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs.  More features will be added to this later.  In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components.
 * The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The  block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens.  This makes footnotes easier to read.  You can request multi-column support for your wiki.
 * You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this.
 * The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow.
 * The item has been moved to the top of the  menu (from clicking on the "hamburger" icon) for quicker access.  There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there.
 * You can now create   tags (sometimes used as  ) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor.
 * Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed.
 * The menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) .  The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt.
 * A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed.  The team are sorry for the disruption.
 * There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations:  + +  on a PC, or  + +  on a Mac.  It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is  +  or  +  respectively.

Future changes

 * The team is working on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of   tags and other types of wikitext syntax.  You will be able to turn it on and off.  It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017.
 * The kind of button used to, , and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI.  The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read.  The labels will remain the same.  You can test the new button by editing a page and adding   to the end of the URL, like this:  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1  The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes.
 * The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors.  See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use.
 * If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready.

—Elitre (WMF) 18:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RevisionSlider
RevisionSlider will be available as a default feature for all users on all wikis from May 17. The RevisionSlider adds a slider view to the diff page so that you can easily move between revisions. The slider view is collapsed by default, and will load by clicking on it. It can also be turned off entirely in the user preferences. RevisionSlider has been a default feature on German, Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia for 6 months and a beta feature on all wikis for 8 months. The feature fulfills a wish from the German Community’s Technical Wishlist. Thanks to everyone who tested RevisionSlider and gave valuable feedback to improve the feature! We hope that RevisionSlider will continue to serve you well in your work. Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)

 * Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki

The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.

You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:


 * Healthy, Inclusive Communities
 * The Augmented Age
 * A Truly Global Movement
 * The Most Respected Source of Knowledge
 * Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem

On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation • m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Cycle 2 discussions launch • Get help 21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

== Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections ==


 * Translations of this message are available on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, we are pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee and Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson elections. Please read the letter from the Wikimedia Foundation calling for candidates at on the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation elections portal.

Funds Dissemination Committee

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson

The Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase will last until May 28 (23:59 UTC).

'''We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates until May 28. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.''' Once the questions submission period has ended on May 28, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to.

The goal of this process is to fill the five community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee and the community-selected ombudsperson. The election results will be used by the Board itself to make the appointments.

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


 * May 15 (00:00 UTC) – May 28 (23:59 UTC) – Nominations
 * May 15 – May 28 – Candidates questions submission period
 * May 29 – June 2 – Candidates answer questions
 * June 3 – June 11 – Voting period
 * June 12–14 – Vote checking
 * June 15 – Goal date for announcing election results

More information on this year's elections can be found at the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation elections portal.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list,.

On behalf of the Election Committee,

Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery • Translate • Get help 21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Smoothies?
Hello. A friend of mine has several recipes for smoothies. It's basically the ingredients, plus usually an evaluation of what the result is. It's basically a trial and error process, documented :) Would that content be OK for the Cookbook? Thanks. --Elitre (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, we already have Bartending/Cocktails. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

How to combine several pages on one ?
I make use of

to include "title of page" on my user page. But it doesn't work very well. Can you help me ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ You had put some "clear: left" instead of "clear: both". JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, but thanks. I had also forgotten a few  . Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is something a little strange. I modified User:Thierry Dugnolle/CoverWFE at 17:07, but the change does not appear yet on my user page. Is it usual ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's due to the server cache which can take from a few seconds to a few days to refresh. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)