An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
A number of scanned works have been uploaded on Commons, including "Atlas of the Munsell Color System" (1912). This included a set of color charts. However, the colors in the chart may have faded compared to how the originals appeared. The Munusell system was analysed in the 1940's and a set of xyY data exists, which means it might be possible to recalibrate the charts. What I am asking about here (rather on the Refdesk) is whether there have been any Chemistry journal articles on which pigments (especially early 20th century ones) are likely to be subject to color drift, and potentially by how much. Coloimetric data is unlikely to exist for pre 20th century works however.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ShakespeareFan00: - there are a significant number of journal articles about pigment changes, the Royal Society of Chemistry have a library, from memory, of pigments and dyes. We should be able to determine the original colours by following the original recipes though, since the colour will be a function of the chemistry, and that being the case, I'd be shocked if there's not an old Munsel colour system to Pantone conversion chart somewhere. Nick (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The pointer to the Royal Chemistry Society Library was all that was needed, you don't need to do anything else on this.
There is a conversion from Munsell into xyY space, that was published in the Journal of the American Optical Society around 1940, which someone was transcribing at Wikisource.
By comparison of the expected RGB triplets from conversion of those xyY values, ( possibly allowing for a change of illuminant), it should also be possible to compare the drift in the scan against known standards. Other considerations include potential concerns about gamut conversion truncations ( sRGB doesn't cover all 'print' colors for example.)
A tristimulus specfication of this appears to have been published as : Tyler & Hardy, (1940) "Analysis of the Original Munsell Color System" in Journal of the Optical Society of America v. 30 iss. 12, pp.587-590.
@ShakespeareFan00: if you're needing any literature on this that isn't digitised and online, or which isn't available through any of the Wikipedia Library avenues, you can see if the Queen's University Belfast library has a print copy https://www.qub.ac.uk/lib/ and I'll get one of our librarians to scan it for me - likewise for anything on the Royal Society of Chemistry side, I can request material from them if needed. Nick (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Could you consider using {{subst:tfm|help=off|type=disabled|1=Both}} instead of removing the whole notice? Per the TfD process, the notice should stay there. Nickps (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If even that fails, then wrap it in <noinclude></noinclude>. But not including it at all is not really an option. Nickps (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was causing any infobox with the {{Marriage}} template to throw up the following error <div style="display:inline-block;Expression error: Unexpected < operator">. The alternative TfD does look to be working correctly now (having purged and checked with pages showing the error previously). Nick (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickps: I'm a bit worried that you're more concerned about the TfD template than the functionality the If both template is providing and can't provide a suitable reassurance your requested edits aren't going to break the template. Again. In any case, we will give it a go and see what we can do. The TfD template doesn't really need to be there now, does it, likely nobody will comment at the TfD and it'll be closed as merge in a week anyway, as it's an uncontoversial merger. Nick (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me phrase it better then. I'm 100% confident that using <noinclude></noinclude> will result in absolutely no breakage. There's your suitable reassurance. I don't agree that the template doesn't need to be there since people may contest the close by arguing they didn't know about the TfD. Nickps (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
