Disputatio Usoris:UV/2019

    E Vicipaedia

    Vide etiam disputationes annorum 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 et 2018.

    Thanks![fontem recensere]

    Happy New Year, UV! Thanks for your help with the changes I made yesterday.

    I made a further change today. I feel sure that the initial layout I have now tested will not be permanent. I did it this way initially because I wanted to see my changes on mobile view as well, and (if I ever knew) I cannot now remember how and where the pagina prima layout on mobile view is set up. So I tried doing it within the constraints of the current mobile view layout! This has, at any rate, worked, and I will now ask on the Taberna if other Vicipaedians think that this appearance -- with a page-of-the-month, a couple of news items, and a page-of-the-day -- is OK. If "NO", then I simply revert today's changes and nothing is lost. If "YES", then we can adopt a more practical format, one that can be applied equally to mobile view. It would be good, too, if the mobile view pagina prima included the imago mensis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 2 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    No problem! We are currently using an outdated method for the selection and presentation of elements on our mobile homepage. Currently, only the two parts surrounded by <div id="mp-???">...</div> elements are presented on our mobile homepage, while all the other content of our homepage is not. We might want to consider to change that. Would you prefer our mobile homepage to show just a few more elements from our desktop homepage or would you prefer it if both show more or less the same content (perhaps with the exclusion of certain elements that do not fit well on a mobile screen)?
    If we want to present more content on our mobile homepage, one of the first tasks should be to change the technical way our current pagina prima is formatted: Currently, our pagina prima technically uses a number of tables for layout purposes. It would be good to change the technical means of formatting to use a "responsive column layout" instead of tables. (This can be done so that the design looks exactly the same as now when viewed on a device with a sufficiently wide display such as a computer screen, but will be much better readable than now when viewed on a device with a narrow screen width.)
    A description can be found here: mw:Mobile Gateway/Mobile homepage formatting. See in particular the section on the now-deprecated "MFSpecialCaseMainPage", which we are currently still using.
    I am not an expert on responsive screen design, but if you wish, I could try to get rid of the tables on our pagina prima, so that we can then proceed with the next steps, what do you think?
    Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 14:34, 2 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your helpful response. I will read the page you have linked. I think it is reasonable that some content is not shown on the mobile page, given the small size of mobile screens and the fact that some Pagina prima content is not active. We probably need to do some renewal of content in any case ... It sounds as though the "responsive column layout" would be a very good idea if you have time to work on the existing tables.
    I wonder whether there is an argument for merging the Pagina prima and the Porta communis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:04, 2 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have made the "Pagina cottidiana" into a separate section of the page, as it was yesterday and obviously should be, but, having done this, I'm not able to persuade it (and the imago mensis) to appear on the Pagina prima in mobile view. Perhaps you could manage this for me? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 3 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pagina cottidiana and imago mensis are now shown on our mobile homepage. No objection against abolishing the Porta communis. Still working on responsive layout … Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:02, 3 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please test Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova in desktop view and in mobile view, each for wide and narrow screen width, possibly using all browsers you have available. Older browsers may fail to display three columns, but with all browsers the content should be readable and accessible.
    Should we eliminate the grey content menu from mobile view (but keep it for the desktop view)? It seems to use much screen space on mobile, and I am not sure that mobile users really benefit from it.
    Once we find that Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova looks nice, we can copy it over to our real pagina prima.
    Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:51, 3 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At first sight, it's great in both environments. I will test it later today on more browsers and devices, and let's ask others to do so too.
    I personally never use the content menu in Vicipaedia: just occasionally in en:wiki because those pages are so dreadfully long. I think eliminating it from mobile view is a good idea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 4 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I'm sorry that I didn't report further, but I have checked the pagina prima, in both views, on an Ipad, a smartphone and an Android tablet, and in three browsers on my desktop. It seems fine in all environments. In the next days I will consider some rearrangement of the pagina prima to include what is desirable from the Porta communis -- notably the weekly translation.

    Perfect! Just go ahead! You might, if you wish, use Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova as a harenarium for testing, and if everything looks good, copy it over to our real Vicipaedia:Pagina prima.
    By the way: Thank you for creating and updating a "pagina cottidiana" - in my view, it is a great idea to feature a new page every day, which invites readers to check back to our pagina prima often, and which shows the activity in the creation of articles on diverse subjects here on Vicipaedia!

    I am thinking that Formula:Nuntii, which is currently distinct from the latest news on the Pagina prima and from the items listed on pages 2019 and 2018 (but is not being actively updated), is unnecessary. Items deleted from the news on the pagina prima could be copied straight to 2019, and there could be a link to 2019 on the Pagina prima. Do you have any opinion on this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:03, 9 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    No objection! In my view, the ideal solution would be to merge the current contents of Formula:Nuntii into the appropriate year pages (2015 to 2018) and then to retire Formula:Nuntii. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:28, 9 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree. I'll work on it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Is it ok if I copy over the contents of our testpage Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova to our real pagina prima, excluding the grey content menu from mobile view (but keeping it for the desktop view)? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:37, 8 Februarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Having said "I'll work on it", I have done little more. Other things happen. But I intend in the next few days to deal with the "Nuntii" in the way that we agreed just above, and meanwhile I think it would be excellent to copy the "Nova" subpage into the real Pagina prima. Whenever you like! I have one minor question in my mind. Why does the "Imago mensis" not have a headline like the other elements of the two left hand columns? I haven't tried to reformat it, aware that whatever I do might not work on mobile view. Perhaps you have a clearer understanding of this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:51, 9 Februarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem! I have added a headline for the imago mensualis and I have copied the contents of Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova to our real pagina prima. I have also requested that the server admins change the server configuration to show all pagina prima content on mobile view as well (phab:T215709). Feel free to experiment with Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova, and whenever the result looks good, we can copy it over to our real pagina prima again. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:15, 9 Februarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    phab:T215709 has been successfully dealt with – we now have a responsive main page that shows the same content (but for the grey content menu) as in desktop view! --UV (disputatio) 21:43, 11 Februarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By the way: I suggest that we swap the positions of "Pagina cottidiana" and "Pagina mensualis" on our main page. That way, the "Pagina cottidiana" will become more prominent and our main page will invite readers to check back more often, what do you think? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:21, 9 Februarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wouldn't object to that -- I understand your point, and of course that was my very reason for introducing the feature in the first place! I hesitate because it was a "unilateral" move on which no one else has commented, though I see signs that other Vicipaedians are looking at the paginae cottidianae and editing them. There's no consensus, as you will realise: I just keep a file of respectable recent pages and promote one each day. One of us should perhaps propose this change on the Taberna, and see what others say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 10 Februarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Interface admin[fontem recensere]

    UV, if you are still willing, please go ahead and propose yourself as interface administrator. See the responses at the Taberna -- all in favour. If you need me to add a comment at the Meta page I will do so of course. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:48, 9 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I am quite sure that we need not bother the people at meta:, but instead our Vicipaedia:Grapheocrates can grant this userright at la:Special:Userrights/UV. I have no objection if you go ahead to his enwiki talk page and ask him. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:28, 9 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, I see. I didn't understand that. I'll pay him a visit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:21, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He responded without delay! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Hagenium - Wikidata[fontem recensere]

    Just to let you know that I copied that from somewhere and I don't know from where, anymore... Nice to see that it's that much easier, though. Sigur (disputatio) 23:16, 11 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I added a note on Sigur's talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sigur, no problem! Andrew, thanks for explaining! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:50, 15 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Porta communis[fontem recensere]

    Greetings, UV. Is it a good time to merge the porta communis with the pagina prima (as we mentioned above)? The helpful links at the top of the porta communis are partly common to the pagina prima, partly different, but the two sets of links could be combined, and I could do that, as an experiment, for comment. The only remaining feature on it, which is not already shared with the pagina prima, is the weekly translation, which you maintain. I think this will get more attention on the pagina prima. I would suggest placing it at the top of the right hand column. But what do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 16 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Logically, then, the right hand column would be all about "collaboratio", and would be headed by a feature that changes regularly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:30, 16 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good idea, feel free to make a proposal at Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:13, 17 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, I'll experiment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 18 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've edited Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Nova, and I will mention this on the Taberna. Would you have time to add an image (when appropriate) at "Translatio hebdomadis"? It perhaps makes the item seem more interesting. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 22 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good idea, yes, I can try to add a suitable image. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:17, 22 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    No one has commented on the Taberna. I hope this means that the proposed change is good and uncontroversial! I think, whenever you have time, you should now adjust the real Pagina prima as proposed on the Pagina prima/Nova/

    My reason for moving the "Nuntii" nearer to the top of the page is that it is an active section, while the "Scin tu?" is currently inactive. But if you see a reason to change any details, e.g. the order of items, feel free to do so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:05, 27 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Good idea to move the "Nuntii" up. I have now removed the links to Vicipaedia:Porta communis. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:54, 27 Martii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    De tribus investigatoribus et terrore in via Sheldon Street[fontem recensere]

    Machen wir Interwiki-Links auf Abschnitte? Dann könnten wir hierauf verlinken (siehe Ende der Liste dort). Ich glaube kaum, dass es einen Wikidata-Eintrag gibt. Sigur (disputatio) 20:32, 5 Maii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Im Normalfall machen wir keine Interwiki-Links auf Abschnitte. Aber solange noch niemand einen Wikidata-Eintrag für diese Übersetzung oder zumindest für dieses Buch der Reihe angelegt hat, fände ich auch den Link auf den Abschnitt halbwegs ok. Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 21:45, 6 Maii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Maplink via Wikidata[fontem recensere]

    Greetings, UV. You may already be aware of this: currently the maplink in wikidata links (headed by "Locus": two examples can be seen on the page Cisonium) take the user to a blank screen with a map pin in the centre. You have to click on "External maps" at bottom right, which takes you to a "short list" of map services. Several of the links don't currently work, including ACME Mapper, which happens to be my usual choice.

    I can imagine two improvements

    1. one, my preference in an ideal world, would be to go direct to the same GeoHack page that we go to from our "Coord" formula (example at top right of Sepultura Prittewellae reperta). GeoHack is already one of the working options on the "short list", and from that I can already get to my ACME Mapper if I want, so I admit I have a workround!
    2. the second, maybe simpler, would be to skip the blank page and go direct to the "short list" of map services

    ... but I'm not sure if these things can be done via Wikidata. What do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:35, 3 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I confirm the problems that you describe. I think that these problems lie within mw:Extension:Kartographer. You could perhaps try to report these problems at mw:Help talk:Extension:Kartographer but I think that the software developers would prefer if you report them at phabricator: mw:How to report a bug. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:28, 3 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks very much for your reply. That seems good advice and I'll try making a phabricator report. But I'm in a region for which I don't really have the maps! Reading the page mw:Extension:Kartographer, can I safely assume that "JsonConfig" and "Kartographer" are loaded in our localsettings.php? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:21, 4 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I had to take some time to do this properly! I've done it now: this is my report. If you care to add any comments that would be fine of course. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 8 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is reassuring to see that an admin at Phabricator (Aklapper) has already verified the report and made a comment on it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 8 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perfect! Nothing to add from my part. Let us hope that the developers will soon deal with the problem! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:04, 10 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Places in England and France[fontem recensere]

    Hi, UV. I need to ask UVbot's help for a fairly large task, so I thought I'd ask you what you think about it. I have created country-wide categories Categoria:Loci habitati Indiae (etc.) so that there's a simple solution for categorizing any page for an inhabited place in any country. Wherever we have lots of pages, I subdivide these by regions/provinces/states. There are several countries where this system would be very helpful, but needs some mechanical help.

    • Case 1: England. I created a set of categories Categoria:Oppida comitatus Cornubiae (etc.) long ago, before I thought of the general term "Loci habitati". I would like to move these to Categoria:Loci habitati comitatus Cornubiae (etc.) so that they match the general pattern and any inhabited place can be logically included. That probably means that UVbot would edit 500 pages in total, and I can make a list of the new category names as usual. No problem I hope.
    • Case 2: France. This involves editing about 36,000 pages, because Helveticus nearly finished creating a page for every French commune. This is really why I'm putting it to you first. It's very desirable to do it, because if/when France emerges from the other end of its current reorganization, there will be vastly fewer communes (but the same number of inhabited places as before!) So my plan is to rename all of the current categories, about 100 of them, e.g. Categoria:Communia praefecturae Rhodani, to Categoria:Loci habitati praefecturae Rhodani, and again, of course, I can prepare the list of categories to move, verifying the names at the same time. The information (x is a commune of y department) will survive, and for each department Helveticus made a list of communes, but the categorization no longer needs to depend on the definition of a commune. The corollary will be that I'll create a supercategory for each department which will be independently useful.

    Do you think UVBot can take this on? Do you have any comments on the plan? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:39, 23 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    If I understand correctly, you are proposing "just" to rename=move a large number of categories, am I right? This is no problem at all for UVbot. Just propose your move at the Taberna, and if there is no opposition, please (as you always do) list the individual source and target category names at Vicipaedia:Automata/Petitiones de categoriis movendis.
    For France, we might alternatively consider to preserve the information that a certain place is/was a commune in the category structure: Instead of moving Categoria:Communia praefecturae Rhodani to Categoria:Loci habitati praefecturae Rhodani, we might consider to move Categoria:Communia praefecturae Rhodani to Categoria:Communia hodierna vel abrogata praefecturae Rhodani. Categoria:Communia hodierna vel abrogata praefecturae Rhodani should of course be a subcategory of Categoria:Loci habitati praefecturae Rhodani. Up to this point, UVbot could help. Later, Categoria:Communia hodierna vel abrogata praefecturae Rhodani might have two subcategories: Categoria:Communia [hodierna] praefecturae Rhodani and Categoria:Communia abrogata praefecturae Rhodani.
    UVbot could also help to copy all contents of one category to another one, in case this helps. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:20, 23 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your comments remind me of a point of which I was aware, but wasn't emphasizing: the current category structure records commune status (present or former), my first proposal wouldn't record it any more. That wasn't good, I must admit. Your idea of copying to a second category is therefore probably a better solution. We can then actually deal with the issue of "present or former" later -- possibly with the help of Wikidata. Meanwhile, Vicipaedia isn't a directory, and the fact that a place has had commune status remains significant in an encyclopedia.
    OK, so my second proposal for the French communes (borrowed from your comments!) is simply to give each of them a second category, which will be "Loci habitati". I will suggest this on the Taberna. Others may well have suggestions to make.
    In my view it's better if a parallel category approach of that kind can offer a different structure -- i.e. not subdivided by departments but by something else -- but I don't currently see a "something else" that would be practical. Current regions are too big, typically containing 2000 or 3000 communes, while historical provinces (though still very significant in French culture) are hard to define precisely. So it probably has to be departments again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 24 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you very much for doing the English "loci habitati" categories and the others I had listed -- already quite a large task! I will wait a couple of days for comments on the Taberna before listing the French commune categories, a much larger task, which of course is not urgent but can be done when you have the time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:16, 27 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:52, 27 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Preparation will take me longer than I expected. I find that many names of departments have to be changed now that better sources are available. These changes need to be made before UVbot gets to work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:24, 29 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem for me either ;-) Thank you for your work on this subject! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:34, 29 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's great that you have completed these moves and additions so quickly. This is, as you realise, the largest single group of pages that we have -- in terms of page numbers, about a quarter of Vicipaedia.
    I have in mind to do something similar for Italian communes. The current category structure there is so strictly hierarchical that it is difficult to get an idea of how many pages we have for Italian towns and villages. It would be good to add a simple "Loci habitati" set of categories, subdivided by regions. This would eventually be a smaller but still significant task for UVbot, about 4,000 pages at a guess, combining a Wikidata label and a current category tree to identify relevant pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:11, 26 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moving all pages from one category to another is no problem, and copying all pages from one category to another one isn't either ;-) Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:39, 26 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    multilingua infoboxes[fontem recensere]

    Hi, appologize to unknown latin, even being the origen of my language (catalan). I red your comment about language in infoboxes. In cawiki we have a collection of full WD powered infoboxes that we presented at WikidataCon'17 in Berlin. Our idea were (and is now) to share them with other WPs, specially those with few people to do the maintenance. At that moment, the assistants suggested to us to make a multilingual version based on WD labels, in order to reduce the setup effort. We're work on it and, in October'19, I'll be on the next edition of WikidataCon to show it. I invite you to visit this summary of infoboxes all of them done just with WD information. This is a beta version of my presentation. As your preference languages is latin, the page must show in latin. Note that each content that does not have a Latin label, shows a small pencil inviting you to go WD and introduce the translation. If you think that it may help you, just tell me. If you find any error, I appreciate you inform to me. Thanks, Amadalvarez (disputatio) 10:17, 25 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Thank you for this information! Your wikidata infoboxes look quite good. In my view, it would be best if there is one central wikidata infobox system that is maintained by a sufficient number of developers. I would like to wait and see how mw:Wikidata Bridge turns out and how your system turns out. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:41, 25 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, they do look good. They have several advantages over ours (which were by intention very simple). These advantages include maps, and direct links to an article in another Wikipedia if there is none in the native language. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:42, 26 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your compliments. I proposed to WD Project Manager to create a common server of infoboxes for all WP. It was the origin to develop the multilingua version that I'll expose next october. It seems wise to wait for the evolution of the Wikidata Bridge. I'm also looking forward. Keep in contact and talk again by the end of 2019. Agree ?. Thanks, --Amadalvarez (disputatio) 04:18, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By the way: How do you do {{ping}} ? --Amadalvarez (disputatio) 04:18, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's very hot here! But all is well ... yes, for my part, I agree. (Thanks for your hospitality, UV.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:57, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good, let us talk again in a few months.
    Instead of {{ping}}, we just link to a userpage, Amadalvarez  ;-) Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:16, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    De Corsica[fontem recensere]

    Bona quaestio, UV! "Communia" Corsicae iam in duas praefecturas digeruntur. Mea mente melius est "Locos habitatos" in unam categoriam insularem/regionalem ponere. Divisio in duas praefecturas, recentius facta, multis displicens, iam hodie partim desueta est. Rebus politicis oblitis, index singulus locorum habitatorum huius insulae certe utilis erit. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 20 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Bene! --UV (disputatio) 13:18, 20 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    To copy or not to copy[fontem recensere]

    Salve, o UV! I've become stuck in trying to figure out whether the picture [1] can be copied to the Commons, or not. Perhaps I'm just too lazy and shy but I feel unable to draw the final conclusion on the Licensing litany. Could you please help in the Entzifferung? Greetings, Neander (disputatio) 12:27, 25 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I fear that this image is not permitted on commons. Commons follows the rule that while a faithful reproduction of a twodimensional ancient work of art does not result in photographers' copyright, photos of threedimensional works of art ("anything that can cast a shadow" or with a surface that is "curved or tattered/broken") entail photographers' copyright, see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Since the pottery is curved and its surface structure is visible in the image, and since we do not know for sure that the photographer died a sufficient number of years ago for copyright to have expired, we cannot use this photo on commons (regardless of what the image description on en.wikipedia claims). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:15, 25 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the highly technical yet fully comprehensible explanation! Greetings, Neander (disputatio) 19:46, 25 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To my eye, the striations in the lower right quadrant make the image look flat, despite the statement that the original was produced by a potter. Is it perhaps an ancient painting made to look like a design that might be found in pottery? Or a modern drawing of an ancient object? Either way, the indication that the uploader has been "banned indefinitely" might discourage the use of this image. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:15, 26 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Small European state[fontem recensere]

    Hi, UV. Having inserted a substitute image of the Luxembourg coat of arms in Formula:Insigne, I then simply reverted your changes to the navboxes that require the image. Hope that's OK!

    I don't know what was wrong with the deleted image -- I'm just hoping that whatever it was will not also affect some of the other images that Formula:Insigne uses ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 29 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perfect! The deleted image appears to have been a copyrighted drawing: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Luxembourg related coat of arms images by User:Sodacan. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:55, 29 Iulii 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Community Insights Survey[fontem recensere]

    RMaung (WMF) 16:20, 9 Septembris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Reminder: Community Insights Survey[fontem recensere]

    RMaung (WMF) 19:49, 20 Septembris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    broken Gadget-definition[fontem recensere]

    Please fix the Gadget-definition in this project. replace "bkl-check|bkl-check.js" with "bkl-check[ResourceLoader]|bkl-check.js" --WikiBayer (disputatio) 13:30, 10 Decembris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Dieses Gadget war leider technisch stark veraltet und hat schon lange nicht mehr funktioniert, ich habe es nun aus MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition entfernt. Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 22:36, 13 Decembris 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]