Incubator:Administrators' noticeboard

This is the page to request attention from test administrators, administrators and bureaucrats. Note what they can do.

Administrators can:

• protect and unprotect pages
• delete and undelete pages
• delete images and other uploaded files
• block and unblock users
• edit the interface and other protected pages

Test administrators can do the same (expect protecting and unprotecting pages), but only within their tests (therefore they cannot edit the interface).

Bureaucrats can do all the above, as well as:

• grant administrator/bureaucrat status
• rename users
• grant/revoke bot flags

Note: Only Stewards may remove adminship or bureaucratship. If you want this to be done go to Requests for permissions at the Meta-Wiki.

If there is no response, you may wish to try the IRC channel, #wikimedia-incubator.

• For deletion requests, use I:RFD for test deletions and {{delete}} for speedy deletions.
• For user rights (admins, test-admins, bots, ...) or renamings, see I:A.

Post a comment

Current notices

New section

Place notices at the bottom of this section.

Common.css

Can someone please add MediaWiki:wp/zgh/Common.css--Brahim-essaidi (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

But with what content? --MF-W {a, b} 19:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

with this content--Brahim-essaidi (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

1444 lines with 176 annotations/warnings generated by the software. From where? For what purpose? --MF-W {a, b} 19:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the problem exactly? Should I reduce the content or what? --Brahim-essaidi (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but I would like to know what all of that does and why it is needed before enabling it. --MF-W {a, b} 22:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I need it to create templates using (lua) modules like those of "enwiki". --Brahim-essaidi (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I still waiting --Brahim-essaidi (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: --OWTB (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this makes sense. Modules are in the Module namespace. --MF-W {a, b} 18:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@user:MF-Warburg: So, how can you explain why some infoboxes looks without borders and colour? Brahim-essaidi (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

CSS pages are required to make style changes of a template (or Module-produced template). Not sure if TemplateStyles are enabled, but TemplateStyles make it possible to do things without editing Common.css, tho I'm not sure. CKoerner and/or Jdforrester should know better than me. — regards, Revi 07:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

TemplateStyles are enabled on Incubator. You can create Template:Foo/styles.css and define your CSS rules from there (without having to edit common.css) More info on MediaWiki.org. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally, I'm staying out of this, because I don't understand modules very well. Do the modules depend on css definitions that would be called from this MediaWiki-namespace file? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure prefixed MediaWiki-pages work... --OWTB (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Never mind. Judging from this they do. --OWTB (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: yes they do, check this for example Brahim-essaidi (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Q147258

Closing as Not done. If you still need this, please make a new request. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Consultation requested

I'd like to ask fellow admins to look at Guianan Creole test, Wp/gcr. A core group of three has been working hard on this test for several months, and by the numbers, except for stub ratio, the test should be eligible.

Now, on the surface, the stub ratio remains very bad. They created well over 1,000 pages, and the majority are either stubs or barely populated list articles (like year articles). But we have asked this team to stop creating new pages and to start filling out the ones they had. It has been a slow process, but they have done that. Recently, they presented me with a list of 50 pages that they had filled out, and those pages (in my view) look good. And they are pages that are likely to be of particular interest to that language community, and that is good, too.

So where do we go? I am concerned that this group is going to run out of patience if we don't say yes soon. And I think they see the "content" question as having been a moving target, while everything else (activity requirement, interface translation, etc.) has been straightforward. They desperately want a specific target to work toward. I really think they've been doing the right thing, and we need to do something to recognize/reward that.

For the near future, the stub ratio is not going to become something we'd typically like to see unless a lot of stubs are deleted—and I certainly wouldn't favor that. At the same time, 50 good pages is a pretty shaky basis for a project approval. (These guys would be perfect candidates for Amir's incubation-space subdomains, but that's not ready to go yet.) I'd like to give them a hard target of a number of pages to fill out—say a second fifty—and if they do so we take them to LangCom.

What do people think? I'd appreciate input here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

simple

Simple English is a language with a site simple. Can create test wiki with code? 14.231.202.190 15:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Simple projects have to be incubated within larger projects, not here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)