This is done via mw-config.

CreateWiki doesn’t add any notices.

Changes to ManageWiki will be needed

In T4164#79542, @John wrote:

This is done via mw-config.

CreateWiki doesn’t add any notices.

@RhinosF1 @Zppix Is this something you would maybe be interested in?

I could look

In T4887 I am trying to say the messages are all fine... the problem is you don't say what date you are counting from.
60 days starting when?
January ??, 201? .
Add a hard, firm, anchor date.

JohnLewis> actually, it may be possible to differentiate '''future''' manual closes, but settings wiki_closed = 2 and having a check so if its 2, we set another $cw var to show it

FYI on how this could be done. For now blocked on community consensus due to the fact that it's unclear from the Dormancy Policy whether closed wikis can be adopted and if they follow the same rules.

Private wikis vs public wikis is now Done.

What remains to be done is manual closure vs script which is still blocked on community consensus.

In T4164#107191, @Reception123 wrote:

What remains to be done is manual closure vs script which is still blocked on community consensus.

Is there a discussion anywhere regarding this?

In T4164#107191, @Reception123 wrote:

Private wikis vs public wikis is now Done.

What remains to be done is manual closure vs script which is still blocked on community consensus.

Whether it's blocked on community concensus or not, about whether manually closed wikis can be adopted. I personally believe it should still be differentiated and to say that it was manually closed rather then it was closed after time

In T4164#136756, @Universal_Omega wrote:

In T4164#107191, @Reception123 wrote:

Private wikis vs public wikis is now Done.

What remains to be done is manual closure vs script which is still blocked on community consensus.

Whether it's blocked on community concensus or not, about whether manually closed wikis can be adopted. I personally believe it should still be differentiated and to say that it was manually closed rather then it was closed after time

Why differentiate something which isn’t different? If they are treated identically, then issue is then the specificity of the message not the functionality. As far as I am concerned currently, regardless of how a wiki is closed means nothing - therefore why should they be technically different?

Keep in mind this message is a Miraheze thing, not an extension thing. Therefore this issue is a Miraheze problem not an extension problem - so unless there’s a real use case for it to be different, you’re spending time making a change for no gain, no benefit for something no one is using.

@John, if I am understanding your and @Universal_Omega's concerns correctly, differentiating the sitenotice for wikis manually closed as opposed to automatically (i.e. by a script) would allow people to easily understand if they can adopt that wiki. This should decrease the number of RfAs that cannot be undertaken and reduce Stewards' workload.

In T4164#136761, @R4356th wrote:

@John, if I am understanding your and @Universal_Omega's concerns correctly, differentiating the sitenotice for wikis manually closed as opposed to automatically (i.e. by a script) would allow people to easily understand if they can adopt that wiki. This should decrease the number of RfAs that cannot be undertaken and reduce Stewards' workload.

Policy does not say manually closed wikis can't be adopted., only private wikis can't be adopted.

But Stewards always close such requests as not done. See this (archived) request, for example.

In T4164#136920, @R4356th wrote:

But Stewards always close such requests as not done. See this (archived) request, for example.

That’s not policy or convention by any means. I would happily allow someone to adopt a closed wiki as we have been doing for years.

In T4164#136920, @R4356th wrote:

But Stewards always close such requests as not done. See this (archived) request, for example.

If this is about manually closed wikis, I'm just going by what @Void has told @Reception123 and I that convention is that manually closed wikis aren't eligible for adoption. This convention may not be universal among all existing stewards and, to be honest, I've also had discussions with @John that we could/should perhaps replace the entire request for adoption process with a request to reopen wiki process, and require any permissions grants to undergo a local election. I would tend to favour that process, instead of the two processes, one of which is only based on subjectively assessing the quantity/quality of the requestor's contributions.

In T4164#136760, @John wrote:

Why differentiate something which isn’t different? If they are treated identically, then issue is then the specificity of the message not the functionality. As far as I am concerned currently, regardless of how a wiki is closed means nothing - therefore why should they be technically different?

Keep in mind this message is a Miraheze thing, not an extension thing. Therefore this issue is a Miraheze problem not an extension problem - so unless there’s a real use case for it to be different, you’re spending time making a change for no gain, no benefit for something no one is using.

What I'm saying is to change it for manually closed wikis to be less confusing, not change the adoption portion of it, right now it says that "This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or logs made within the last 60 days." For manually closed wikis this is inaccurate all I'm saying is to make it so it doesn't say no edits in lass 60 days but rather that it was manually closed.

In T4164#137209, @Universal_Omega wrote:

In T4164#136760, @John wrote:

Why differentiate something which isn’t different? If they are treated identically, then issue is then the specificity of the message not the functionality. As far as I am concerned currently, regardless of how a wiki is closed means nothing - therefore why should they be technically different?

Keep in mind this message is a Miraheze thing, not an extension thing. Therefore this issue is a Miraheze problem not an extension problem - so unless there’s a real use case for it to be different, you’re spending time making a change for no gain, no benefit for something no one is using.

What I'm saying is to change it for manually closed wikis to be less confusing, not change the adoption portion of it, right now it says that "This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or logs made within the last 60 days." For manually closed wikis this is inaccurate all I'm saying is to make it so it doesn't say no edits in lass 60 days but rather that it was manually closed.

While I get what you're saying and aiming to achieve, I feel that might end up complicating things. We should aim for clarity, yes, but we should also strive for simplicity, and I just don't want to see the sitenotice try and discuss all potential reasons for why the wiki is closed. We could take out the reference to no edits or logged actions in the past sixty days, but then we may lose a bit of clarity. Do you have a proposed revision in mind?

In T4164#137210, @Dmehus wrote:

In T4164#137209, @Universal_Omega wrote:

In T4164#136760, @John wrote:

Why differentiate something which isn’t different? If they are treated identically, then issue is then the specificity of the message not the functionality. As far as I am concerned currently, regardless of how a wiki is closed means nothing - therefore why should they be technically different?

Keep in mind this message is a Miraheze thing, not an extension thing. Therefore this issue is a Miraheze problem not an extension problem - so unless there’s a real use case for it to be different, you’re spending time making a change for no gain, no benefit for something no one is using.

What I'm saying is to change it for manually closed wikis to be less confusing, not change the adoption portion of it, right now it says that "This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or logs made within the last 60 days." For manually closed wikis this is inaccurate all I'm saying is to make it so it doesn't say no edits in lass 60 days but rather that it was manually closed.

While I get what you're saying and aiming to achieve, I feel that might end up complicating things. We should aim for clarity, yes, but we should also strive for simplicity, and I just don't want to see the sitenotice try and discuss all potential reasons for why the wiki is closed. We could take out the reference to no edits or logged actions in the past sixty days, but then we may lose a bit of clarity. Do you have a proposed revision in mind?

How would making it more accurate complicate it more? I'm saying to use a different sitenotice for manually closed wikis which is the exact same as script closed, but without the time part of it.

Now blocked by T10745 which will make the sitenotice part easy.

A slightly modified version would be this:

• have a new cw_closed_inactive which would be set to true along with cw_closed if closed by script OR change the current method so that cw_inactive remains true even if cw_closed is set to true
• make it so that when a wiki is both closed and locked it is deemed steward/T&S closed and the sitenotices appear as such.

The locked/closed sitenotice should now be in effect. A new idea would be that whenever a wiki is closed by the script it would be cw_closed = 2 while cw_closed = 1 would be reserved for wikis closed manually by the bureaucrat or steward.