User talk:Mono/Archive 1

edit this template Welcome to the Wikimedia Foundation wiki

Thanks for being here! This wiki does not exactly follow the same rules as the other Wikimedia projects, since it is not open to all for editing, and in case of disagreement, the organ of decision will be the Board. A rule of thumb however is that if we gave you access, that means we trust you. So please, do not be shy in editing this site. There is ample work for everyone :-)

• Please create your userpage with a short biography and other introductory information about yourself and the work you do. You may want to use the {{user info}} template. Feel free to look at other user pages for examples.
• All organizational pages may be found in the special category.
• For those willing to help with translation, please see m:Translation requests, and in particular the Foundation subpage /WMF.
• Please watch for feedback on Meta-Wiki and start discussions there.
• More about this wiki...

--MZMcBride 20:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Minimizing raw HTML

I'd really like to minimize the use of raw HTML. This can surely be achieved through other means (if it should be achieved at all...). Change the image syntax from "thumb" to something else? Using "thumb" and then hiding the border seems a bit silly. A bit more on raw HTML here, by the way. --MZMcBride 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree; the extra stylesheet is messy. I'm attempting to work around it. Monomium 02:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Benefactors

Hey Mono -

I love the look. I have one nit to pick, however... the floating hands at the right... if your screen is less than fully sized, you can't see the Donate now button, and it's not scrollable. In fact, I can't even see the "Become a benefactor button" at all. I think it would be fine if the hands were anchored to the top. Philippe (WMF) 06:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the 'position:fixed' for that section which seems to fix our issue. Jalexander 06:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rand, etc.

Hi. A couple of things:

1. doing randomness in JavaScript assures you won't hit parser cache all the time (no need to a purge/update link, you'll actually have rotating content on browser page refresh, etc.); in an ideal world, at least; and https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Rand&action=edit currently has invalid code, so please fix that;
2. when you copy over local templates such as Template:Mod or Template:Rand from another wiki, you need to specify where they came from (give proper attribution); that usually means a link back to the original template or the original template's page history or edit screen or a revision number or something; all of these should be noted on the at least the talk page, though ideally in the page creation edit summary, unless you really wrote all of those templates yourself; please fix this.

And I assume you told someone you were going to do A/B testing on the main page... or at least I would hope you talked to some people first. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Beep boop

Hi. I reverted your changes to the Wiktionary logo. This is a fairly contentious issue and I don't want you to start a riot. I agree that the current Wiktionary logo situation is less than ideal, but that's the reality (for now). Oh well.

I saw your changes to Template:Benefactors. People are usually fairly protective of that page, but your changes looked decent enough to me. Just don't be particularly annoyed if someone ends up reverting the language changes you made to the button (we'll see if anyone notices/cares).

I also saw your changes to Contact us. They looked pretty good. I'm not a huge fan of the double jump from "Press and Media" --> "[short blurb that's really just a pointer to Press room". It seems inelegant. Other than that, I like the new layout. You should drop Mr. Walsh a note if you haven't already letting him know you changed the page. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Contact us

Hi, Mono. :)

While I think your change to Contact us was very eye-popping, I've undone it for now as there were several problems with it, one of which would require some significant retooling. I've left a more explicit note on the talk page for discussion. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Social media

Hi Mono,

it's a nice idea to create a page with information about social media accounts, but please coordinate with the social media team (socialmedia at wikimedia dot org) before doing so, and perhaps try to flesh out the existing pages on Meta (e.g. m:Social Media) first. It's problematic to publish unchecked information here on this wiki where it is likely to be perceived as official statements by the Foundation. For example, the claim "No official Wikimedia Foundation Google+ page exists at this time" was simply wrong.

Regards, Tbayer (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved to User:Monomium/Social media for now. Tilman: more wiki. :-) m:Social Media is nice, but serves a different purpose. Easy enough to correct the G+ info in User:Monomium/Social media. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, wikis are for collaboration! I've copied some of the details from Meta, including the Google+ ones. Thehelpfulone 13:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is and should be a wiki, but just as on Wikipedia you may want to consult with someone before adding information to their user page, or editing their talk page comments, this example shows why coordination is a good thing before publishing statements on the Foundation's behalf on this wiki.

As I said, the G+ claim was just an example; the one about Facebook was almost as misleading. A journalist who happened to have seen this would have been entirely justified to write "On its official website, the Wikimedia Foundation states that it does not have an official presence on Google+ and Facebook".

How would you define these different purposes, btw?

Regards, Tbayer (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The page at m:Social Media seems to be about some kind of social media team something about volunteers and Wikimedia Foundation staff something. It's an internal page, so it's rightly situated on Meta-Wiki.

A page on this wiki would be public-facing. The public doesn't care about how the sausage is made, so to speak. At least not most of them. And if they do, they can visit Meta-Wiki. For this wiki, a page titled "Social media" answers "where is the Wikimedia Foundation on social media?", usually with some icons (Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, etc.). A lot of organizations and places have added these icons to the global template used on every page, of course. I'm not sure that's really a good idea here, but having an attractive public-facing page that explains the various social media outlets that the Wikimedia Foundation can be found on seems completely fine to me. (And seems to be fine for everyone else, in fact. It just seems like the inaccuracies were the main issue.)

Mono: I don't think I said so before, but thank you for creating this page. Hopefully it can be fixed up and moved back in short order. I like the design and I'd like to see more pages spruced up and cared for around here. This is a good direction to be headed in. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a first stab at explicitly defining the purposes of these pages, that's useful and pretty close to my own (preliminary) thinking - a page here is public-facing and has an official character, while Meta is more suitable for making sausages. E.g. by starting incomplete and possible inaccurate lists of social media handles such as this or this page (both linked from m:Social media), which then evolve over time, with the help of several people, into something more complete.

And yes, we all agree that such a polished, public-facing page on this wiki is a nice idea, as I said in the very beginning, and hopefully by now there is also agreement that when publishing official-looking public-facing statements about other people's work, verifying is better than guessing.

Regards, Tbayer (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I will respond to the original comment and appropraite topics. I actually checked Google+ for the Wikimedia Foundation page and after seeing the Google+ default header image and what appeared to be an automatic feed, I assumed it had been deprecated in favor of the +Wikipedia page. I also believed that the "THIS PAGE IS INCOMPLETE." statement at the top was sufficient (I did not see the {{draft}} template). I am fully aware of the public nature of this wiki, but in my judgement the statements were factually acurate and my information was actually derived from the Meta page originally. THe Facebook page was also deprecated, so it would actually could be construed without a social media page on the site that "the Wikimedia Foundation states that it does not have an official presence on Google+ and Facebook". These are technicalities, but hopefully that clears things up. Thanks, Monomium (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of how this happened. The last post on the Wikimedia Foundation G+ page is just a few days old and clearly not automatically generated, so I'm unclear about what that guess was based on. Also, https://www.google.com/+Wikipedia has a default header image, too, so I find that argument puzzling as well. But if you think that the two G+ pages would look better with custom-made header images, I'll take that as useful input. Finally, I do not understand the "construed" conclusion, and I think there is a difference between incomplete and wrong. But perhaps these are moot points by now - we all agree that a new Social Media page on this wiki is a good idea, and MzMcBride's introduction of Template:Draft should help in the process of creating one.

I'm not aware of a deprecation notice of any kind at https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia , can you give more detail about how it looked like, so that we can investigate the issue? Also, could you give a link to that Meta page where you took the information from, so that it can be corrected there as well? Thanks!

Regards, Tbayer (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)