Meta:Babel

←Index of discussion pages

Babel

archives (latest)→

This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following: You can comment here in any language This forum is primarily for discussion of site policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki. If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here). For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page. For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language. To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum. Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
About Meta Discussion pages Request pages Policies and guidelines Information and statistics Categories Help pages Participate: How to edit a page Meta-Wiki discussion page Meta-l mailing list

Unified Wikimania Wiki

Hi. Just want to know why does each Wikimania need a separate wiki? Wouldn't it be much better/easier to have a unified Wikimania wiki? So that common tips, feedback, etc can be reused easily? It is also much neater in the mid- to distant-future, when many Wikimanias have already taken place. I see no strong reason to have separate wikis for these. Comments? Rehman 12:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Wikimania project domain is a now dead proposal that can be revived. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 06:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed this has been discussed several times (don't be annoyed if nobody replies, it happens with perennial proposals). Now that I think of it, last time there was some work on mw:Extension:ConventionExtension as part of GSoC, I don't understand its status though. --Nemo 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to cross-post this around with more detail. Hopefully this will bring in more people. Rehman 12:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-post with more detail:

Right now, we already have a dozen separate wikis for each past and future Wikimanias, and there's no doubt there'll be much more to come.

The idea here is to have a single Wikimania wiki (wikimania.wikimedia.org) for all conferences, instead of the current separate-wiki style (wikimania2012.wikimedia.org). This has been discussed at Wikimania project domain in 2011, but seem to quickly ran outta gas.

Key issues addressed:

• Q1: Organizers (alone) of a current conference needs to have absolute control over the conference wiki (aka being an admin).
• A1: Wikimania wikis does not run as normal projects. Hence, all organizers shall easily be given admin rights (and former organizers removed) as it becomes necessary. The cycle continues.

• Q2: What about archiving past wikis? What if we need to look back?
• A2: Except for key pages (such as the Main Page), all other pages of each project could be created under the respective year's subpage. For example, all 2012 conference's pages would be under: http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012/page/page/etc. Additionally if necessary, any vital page requiring archiving could also be edit protected (cascading style too, if possible).

Please respond at the existing Wikimania project domain proposal page. --Rehman 12:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Enable CleanChanges

I propose to enable mw:Extension:CleanChanges on Meta. You can see how it looks on translatewiki:Special:RecentChanges. It's useful for everyone but in particular to enhance collaboration around translation in a language, as RC can then be filtered by language. I'm particularly in need of this feature to monitor translations and translators in my language now that Special:SupportedLanguages has been disabled by Tim (hopefully temporarily) for performance reasons. The extension is part of the standard Translate set (mw:MLEB) so this is a rather trivial proposal; I'll request it on bugzilla in a week from now if there are no objections. --Nemo 12:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Since it can be switched off individually, there should be no problems. --MF-W 20:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

bugzilla:53541. --Nemo 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that feature pretty much sucks, imo. It should be made opt-in only and not the default for everyone. Users who want this new design can opt-in and all others aren't bothered with unneeded changes they don't want. -Barras talk 22:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And there should've been more discussion than only on this page (it should've been advertised more; I have enough to take care of). Trijnstel_talk 22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was away during this discussion, so I guess it's my fault. But I never noticed this until it was enabled a few minutes ago. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Advertised where exactly? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Awful, please disable by default. --Ricordisamoa 22:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please expand on what you mean by "awful"? That isn't constructive feedback. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Barras: what sucks about this feature? The idea is to reduce the amount of clutter in various recent changes lists (watchlist, etc.). This is a noble goal, I think. What don't you like? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was poorly advertised and four supporting !votes is of course not enough. Please disable it by default, at the very least; it's quite ugly, doubles my page load times, and needlessly conceals buttons and information I want to see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Poorly advertised how? Where else should it have been advertised?

If this feature has truly doubled your page load times, please file a bug in Bugzilla: <https://bugs.wikimedia.org>.

What information is needlessly concealed? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to see all the diffs rather than some, as is for log entries. I don't want vandalism to slip below my watch this way. Also, I want full log entries. This should've also been advertised in watchlist notice, stewards' noticeboard, and other noticeboards around Meta, not just here. As for page load times, the doubling of the load time occurred on enwiki, which was mainly because I have a massive watchlist (I have the 1000 entries option enabled) there. But my point is that it takes up bandwidth/resources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Then go to your preferences and disable it individually. :) Vogone talk 23:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Which I did, but enabling this without full consensus was totally improper.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Meta-Wiki has ever used a watchlist notice (cf. MediaWiki:Watchlist-details). If you believe there are other noticeboards that should be advertised in the future for changes of this nature, please explicitly list them somewhere. As far as I can tell, you're creating an impossible standard by retroactively announcing the places you feel a change should be discussed. How was Nemo (or anyone else) supposed to know your standards?

As it was here, there was an advertised discussion in the appropriate venue ("Meta:Babel"), a week went by, there was unanimous consent (four supports). And the feature can be disabled on a per-user basis. I'm not sure what the big deal is. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Meta:RFC and the watchlist (or site) notice were the minimum... if you don't know how to advertise a proposal properly, I don't really think you should be making them (the advertisement of this proposal was much disproportionate to the magnitude of the change involved). These aren't my standards. They go without saying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Are these written or unwritten standards? I'm not sure how you expect people to strictly adhere to unwritten standards. If you're particular about where and how changes are advertised and discussed, I'd recommend documenting this somewhere. Otherwise, nobody has a chance of ever satisfying your (unstated) requirements. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

They are unwritten because they are fundamental to how wikis operate (although consensus is a written guideline and this proposal did not comply with it). I don't think I need to be specific about which pages, because it's up to the proposer, but it has to be reasonably wide enough for the community to see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And that's why I chose the most prominent place on this wiki. ;) RfC is also the wrong place, it's never been used for configuration matters on Meta. Of course you can open a discussion (or RfC) to change that. ;) --Nemo 09:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC) P.s.: I'm sorry if my original message was not clear enough; I'm always too verbose, I thought a visible and live example as the link I provided was more effective than words.

This is definitely not the most prominent place on this wiki, especially for such a change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted gerrit:84102 --Ricordisamoa 23:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's some specific feedback:

• I miss the expanded userlinks (I like being able to see at a glance whether someone has a red talkpage link) + (I like being able to use Popups over someone's usercontribs).
• I dislike the distracting (visually grabbing aberation) use of a clickable image to expand the userlinks.
• I strongly oppose using the file:magnify-clip.png image () as non-standard interface affordance.
• I miss the bulletpoints - They were a clear visual indicator of each item.
• The alignment is broken - see screenshot of four problems
• I miss the "diff" links in a column - Whenever I use my watchlist, I hover over these each in turn, using Popups. I middleclick on each in turn, to open in a new background tab.
• The time is in UTC, and I am not, so that information is generally not useful to me, and doesn't need to be as prominent as this change makes it. (I could change the watchlist-time in my preferences, but then talkpage signature timestamps wouldn't match)

That's all the specifics I can think of.

I do agree that updating/redesigning the UI of the history/watchlist/recentchanges pages is a good idea to pursue, and I'd very much like to be able to filter in/out of translation changes, but I'd want to see a page detailing design-driven rationales for each change to the UI that we're all used to, especially of such overhauling-magnitude as this.

Hope that helps. Quiddity (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I had "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" enabled, but I had "Expand watchlist to show all changes" disabled, hence today's change was a massive revamp. Turning off the former, fixed it for my needs. I'll leave the feedback above though, in case it is useful. Quiddity (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I just created {{CleanChanges}} to better advertise that this change was opt-out, not opt-in. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Quiddity, of course for the date and time you have to set your timezone in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-datetime as for all features on all wikis, if you decide not to it's not their fault. I'll file enhancement requests for the actionable items you reported so that they appear at [1] but I don't get some of them, so you may want to do it yourself for those (I know you are able to ;) ):

• I don't know what a "non-standard interface affordance" is, enhancement requests appreciated detailing requirements for satisfactory new icons;
• we have a clear visual indicator of each item and it's the time;
• diff links are still there and I have the same workflow of opening in new tabs without problems. --Nemo 09:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• UTC Time: Yup, as I said, it's my choice not to set a local time-zone, because otherwise talkpage timestamps don't match, which makes fixing things like unsigned messages more confusing, or discussing timestamped items with other editors.
• Icon choice: sorry, my bad wording - I meant: we shouldn't use the icon that is already universally (afaik) used for the "enlarge thumbnail" link in all images/videos.
• Expanding/Collapsed "Usertalk/Usercontribs": I don't think collapsible text is a good thing here (especially as it's the default for anonymous/logged-out users) so I'd suggest just removing that function altogether, rather than trying to pick a different icon. If it does have to remain, then I would suggest using a text-link instead of an icon-link; either "+" or "more". I'd also suggest a user-preference or a button at the top, to auto-expand all instances on "the current page".
• Question: Is it possible to auto-expand all of the "grouped changes", so that I/we don't have to click all the blue arrows () every time for every item? Possibly through user CSS/JS? (If not, I guess I could file a bug for that, but I'm not sure what component it would go in.)

Hope that helps. :) Quiddity (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• The "enlarge" icon seems appropriate to me because it's familiar; suggestions would go to CleanChanges component.
• The arrows are part of core, so an enhancement request needs to be filed there (remember to cc Rillke who identified this as an area of improvement too). --Nemo 21:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Quiddity: Try User:PiRSquared17/common.js. Yes, I know eval is evil, but it seems to be the easiest way, and it works in all cases (?). I also tried to do it in CSS (see my common.css), but then the links to expand/close don't work, and there's no way to change the href without JS. So I guess the JS solution is the best. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@PiRSquared17: That works fabulously! That you muchly. Maybe I can finally start using "expand my watchlist" on En.Wiki, after 8 years of avoiding it!

Would you be able to field Nemo's suggestion of filing an enhancement request for making this a feature? I only just started using the "expanded changes" tool so am on very unfamiliar ground. I'm not sure if it would be best as a button at page-top, or in user-preferences, or what.

Lastly, How would I/we auto-expand all of the username/usercontrib links? Quiddity (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@Quiddity: I filed bug 54149. I could make a similar one for enhanced RC, if you would like.

I'll work on the other things. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes please! Quiddity (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, how does one disable it in preferences? I know I supported the original addition, but it isn't as nice as I thought I remembered it to be on the translationwiki... Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  @Ajraddatz: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  Aah, I see where it is now. I checked there but thought the checked box was for enhanced rc... thanks! Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  Wait a second, that does get rid of my nice enhanced rc. :( Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree that this should have been more highly publicized. --Rschen7754 03:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly good to know for the future. I advertised this change (retroactively, unfortunately) via {{CleanChanges}}, which now shows on Special:RecentChanges and Special:Watchlist. Where else should this discussion or proposed feature been advertised? (Is there a written list of such places?) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure... I have this page watchlisted, but I was not aware of this thread until today. Maybe RFH, SN, and other places? --Rschen7754 03:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a wrong place, then it is RFH/SN. This is neither a request for help nor a steward matter. It's purely about the Meta-Wiki and its community and the community has its discussions here. Anyway, I agree that RC/watchlist notices are a good thing to advertise important discussions about the wiki itself. Vogone talk 08:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I mean a link to the discussion, not the actual discussion. --Rschen7754 08:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I mean that as well, as this is in no way related to admins/stewards. Vogone talk 08:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I like it in my watchlist as it removes some clutter. But I am not a frequent guest here. The "expander" could be a more intuitive graphic. -- Rillke (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• i think clean changes should be opt-in and not enabled for everyone (e.g. anons) by default. I prefer to see the standard recent changes format when logged out and not be forced to log in all the time. I look at recent changes quite regularly, though I am not logged in all the time. If clean changes is a preference, then maybe at some point I can grow to like it more and be more willing to have it be default. :) Aude (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not enough discussion IMO. It should be opt-in only. I don't know why default on Meta should be different from others. How many people would use it? Not too many I guess. It is easier to make those couple of persons that want it to opt-in than to force all others to opt-out.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 05:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In case you didn't notice, translation is one of the major activities on this wiki and we have hundreds of translators: their work and collaboration must be appreciated and empowered, not dismissed as irrelevant. The changes made were requirements for the proposed solution; those who want to change the current situation should point to alternatives for the purpose or their complaints won't be actionable. --Nemo 09:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • They don't dominate or control the wiki; it's unfair to non-translators.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Various people seem to think that this is the stewards' wiki. Everyone has their biases. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Opt-in is the way. And now some remarks: Enable CleanChanges is a shitty small change of the software, thus it is a waste of time to discus here. But it shows one point: 1. there is no reason tomake it by default, 2. it seems that the most users here wants an opt-in, but 3. somebody says no, it should be default. This remembers me to other discussions like Visual Editor etc, see the polls on dewiki and enwiki, where the community says NO, but somebody comes and decides YES. People, remember please the original roots and goals of Wikipedia. -jkb- 00:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Shitty why? The goal is to reduce clutter in various noisy places. What don't you like? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, the support was unanimously when this change was implemented. You cannot compare apples and oranges, especially since this change is still reversible. Vogone talk 16:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• I hate this. Theo10011 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  @Theo10011: Please be more specific. Why do you hate it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  Let's see, I'm not technically inclined but I'll try -

  Similar changes are collapsed in the tree by default, It seems like an awful waste of screen space, when half of the 50 default change setting end up showing about half of those.

  It is not arranged by time. For those who monitor recent changes for vandalism etc., the changes are arranged by page not time. So a lot get missed unless someone individually checks the changes.

  The font choice seems odd from earlier, maybe it's not but something feels odd about how it looks compared to the regular RC feed.

  The settings to rollback and see user contrib is again collapsed by default. Some of these things should be visible.

  Lastly, I don't think the new system is ready for prime time yet. It needs more work, a better look and some customization before its deployed. Anyway, That's what irked me from the first look, might actually be easy to get around those things for all I know but those stood out. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

CleanChanges extension temporarily disabled

Hi everyone.

We've temporarily disabled mw:Extension:CleanChanges on Meta as a security hole was identified, and we weren't happy with the extension being live here with a security hole in it. I've consulted with Chris Steipp, our security engineer, and he has advised me that he expects the security hole to be fixed tomorrow. We expect the extension to be redeployed to Meta by the end of the week, but we'd like to do a more through security review before we redeploy to make sure there are no further issues.

For now, Special:RecentChanges will use enhanced recent changes to group things up. If you still wish to have the old view, the grouping can be disabled by following the instructions at the top of the recent changes feed.

Best regards,

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Dan. Can we also remove the notice about this on our watchlists (with the purple border)? It doesn't seem to be generated by MediaWiki:Watchlist-details like on most wikis, so I'm not sure where it's coming from. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's on Template:CleanChanges which is transcluded to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. I had to use Google to find that out, hah! I'll update it now. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's linked above: Template:CleanChanges. Though the border looks blue to me (or at most indigo? unsure about English name), so you may be looking to/talking about something else. --Nemo 20:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC) P.s.: Search finds it perfectly by clicking "All", so for once we don't have to blame Lucene.

I've updated Template:CleanChanges. Thanks, Steven! --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone describe what the differences between CleanChanges and grouping in the enhanced recent changes are? I liked CleanChanges, and have now tried the enhanced recent changes option, and it looks quite the same to me. --MF-W 17:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

See the next section. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User experience and design improvements to CleanChanges

Hi everyone.

Howie and I are now taking a closer look at mw:Extension:CleanChanges. In particular, I think the extension is a bit lacking in terms of its user experience and interface design. I'd like to get some improvements made and polish the UI a bit. I'm going to pass it over to Jared and the rest of the design team, as this is what they're great at. I'd appreciate any input that people here might have into the design of the extension, so that I can pass those concerns on to the design team.

In light of the fact that the folks above specifically asked to have the extension enabled, I'm still going to reenable the extension after the security hole is fixed. Although overall I'm not totally satisfied with the design, I think that it's good enough to be used while the UI is polished. The opt-out will remain for those that aren't happy using it.

Best regards,

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan.

Is there any difference between the CleanChanges extension and MediaWiki core's enhanced recent changes?

Is there a Bugzilla bug that tracks the work that you're proposing? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey MZMcBride.

There are some differences, but they're subtle. The best way to see the differences is to look at RecentChanges on Meta and compare it to RecentChanges on translatewiki. The main difference is the collapse of a few user links, and the ability to filter by language (useful here on Meta, potentially).

Thanks for the suggestion about the bug. I'm used to putting stuff in Bugzilla only when I find a bug, so I'm still trying to transition into using it for my regular workflow. There's no bug yet. I'm going to gather some feedback from the designers, sift through it, and put it in a bug then. There's already some feedback which I'll pass to the designers. I'll link the bug here once it's up.

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why can't your merge the extension with the code in core? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's on the table. See this. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As it wasn't said, this also changed the enhanced RC preference to users like me that had it true since the beginning of time; I had to set it again. --Nemo 16:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A bit annoying. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan Has the problem with CleanChanges been fixed? My Meta watchlist says that it's still disabled. --Pine^✉ 05:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pine. Yes, the extension is still disabled. Yesterday Chris Steipp asked the owner of the extension to review the security patch to verify that it fixes the bug. In the time it's taken me to write this message, that verification has been completed. Chris will include this patch in the next security release and then we'll get it re-enabled. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Split translation group zh to zh-hans and zh-hant.

---

Hello everyone, I recently realized that on mate all the subgroups under zh have been closed. However, I suggest that we should close zh and open zh-hans and zh-hant instead because of the following reasons.

• We used to have all zh subgroups (i.e. zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-tw, zh-sg, zh-hant, zh-hans) and never completed neither one of these translations. As far as the translations on Meta are concerned, the differences between regional subgroups (i.e. zh-cn v.s. zh-sg, zh-tw v.s. zh-hk) are negligible.
• However, there are two writing systems in Chinese. Putting them altogether makes zh a mixture of simplified Chinese (zh-hans) and traditional Chinese (zh-hant). This may cause some troubles to our readers and make the page look bad. If we have zh-hans and zh-hant enabled, it will have readers who read either simplified or traditional Chinese.

-Mys_721tx(talk) 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Moved from Meta talk:Babylon - Mys_721tx(talk) 21:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Any comments? --Mys_721tx(talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgable on the subject, but it seems fine to me (if technically possible). PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I was told that this job should be done by Language Converter. -- Rillke (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Rillke: Thanks for pointing that out. I did not know meta-wiki has that enabled before.

The converter here is not automatic yet. However, from the experience on Chinese Wikipedia, having it automatically convert page contents based on visitor's IP does not work as well as expected. (e.g. sometimes unregistered users will have to purge the cache to get the conversation of their locale.) It might just be easier to translate two versions rather than fixing the problems with the converter. --Mys_721tx(talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Banner for Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Azerbaijani

Hello! Who can create the main banner for Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 with Azerbaijani text "Viki Abidələri Sevir: Abidənin şəkilini çək, Vikipediyaya kömək et və qazan!"?

MediaWiki:Centralnotice-wlm 2013-text/az

--Interfase (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done by Romaine. Vogone talk 13:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Vote pages

There are > 100 vote pages (example) created for the wikivoyage logo election. My question is whether they should be deleted or not. Thanks in advance. -- Rillke (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why these should be deleted. Merged and redirected? Possibly (but not my preference). But not deleted. - dcljr (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism & Co. I will clear them from my watchlist now. -- Rillke (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Search in namespace name

I just noticed that Special:Search/grants retrospective doesn't appropriately list Grants:Retrospective 2009-2012. It's quite a downside for all those namespaces we have been creating, the most important keyword of their pages is excluded for searches. Is there a bug for this, or a workaround? --Nemo 10:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the Grants namespace isn't currently considered a content namespace? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, obvious reason is obvious. I assumed it was in $wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault but that's only Research, among the new namespaces. Some cleanup needed. --Nemo 12:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut hints on mouseover – missing shift?

When I mouseover on, say, my watchlist link, it tells me the shortcut was [alt-l] rather than [alt-shift-l]. Same in every wiki but I'm fairly sure those hints used to be correct. What happened? --Nirakka (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The tooltips are correct for me (FF 17.0.7 for Linux). Are they still incorrect for you? What browser are you using on what operating system? - dcljr (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, it's indeed related to the browser. In Chromium the tooltips are correct but in Iceweasel 20.0 on Debian Wheezy the shift is missing. --Nirakka (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I filed a bug now. --Nirakka (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RecentChanges

What happened to RecentChanges (in monobook)? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

#Enable CleanChanges Vogone talk 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Project proposal again

How much support should a project proposal get before an RFC is held on it? I see that the Wikivoyage proposal had about 50 supporters before its RFC, is this about right? Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no standard, as far as I know. We currently have a draft charter of the proposed Sister Projects Committee and a proposed new projects process. Since Wikimedia is currently in a "narrowing focus" phase, it is unlikely people would care about having an actual process for new project proposals. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested update to anon-footer templates

Context
Meta has outdated (halfbroken) versions of:

• MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon and MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext

At En and MW, these templates:

• w:Template:Anontools and mw:Template:Anontools

are used in the equivalent MediaWiki pages:

• w:MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext and mw:MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext
• w:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon and mw:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon

Suggestion
I'd recommend using the same setup (ie. create Template:Anontools here), and then update the 3 anontools templates to use the best available.

(I'm posting here because I'm not sure where is best, nor how many people watchlist the mediawiki: namespace talkpages.) HTH. Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to PiRSquared17 for fixing that all up properly! Anyone who enjoys watchlistingALLthethings should add Template:Anontools and Template:Anontools/ipv4 and Template:Anontools/ipv6 (which were copied from their latest enwiki versions). :) Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved.

Wikivoyage Logo

The Wikivoyage logo has been updated on Template:OurProjects and OTRS but it hasn't transfered over to the translated versions. Could someone sort it out? Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: Done. Do you want to know how? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are some links/buttons to use according to step 3 of the docs which need to be used to propigate the changes, which I don't have (and don't actually need since it's been done). -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There's still a few places that the logo needs updating from Wikivoyage-logo.svg to Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg on a few other wikis if anyone can help. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• ace:Pola:ProyekWiki  Done
• bn:টেমপ্লেট:প্রধান পাতা সহপ্রকল্প
• fa:الگو:Sister
• lv:Veidne:Citi projekti
• nn:Mal:Wikimediaprosjekt
• pt:Predefinição:Projetos correlatos4
• pt:Predefinição:Página principal/Projetos irmãos
• vi:Bản mẫu:Liên quan Wikipedia
• species:Template:Sisterprojects-ES
• [2]  Done
• [3]  Done
• [4]  Done
• [5]  Done by PiRSquared17 (GS)
• [6]  Done by PiRSquared17 (GS)
• [7]

Did the few that were semiprotected only and that I could edit. --Rschen7754 07:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: Basically, if translations are not updated:

• If the new version is already marked for translation (like in this case)

  If you are translation admin, either wait for it to update or dummy edit and remark - or do the next step

  If you are not translation admin, you can still update by null editing each translation individually (/en as well!)

• If not marked for translation, get an admin to mark it

PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrators or managers?

There are various job titles across the projects that have the word "administrator" at the end. For example Central Notice Administrators and Translation Administrators. Why not change all of them into Central Notice Managers, [TASK NAME HERE] Managers? Proper Administrators are sysops with their traditional tasks, and it might be confusing to have specialist administrators who are not administrators at all but rather manage a limited field of expertise. --Pxos (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Explain me the difference between the words "administrator" and "manager", please. If my dictionary is right, they describe the same thing (see also wikt:administrator). Regards, Vogone talk 19:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

They consist of different letters :) If someone manages a specialised field they should be named differently from administrators. A translation administrator is not an "administrator who deals with translation issues as well as being a normal sysop". --Pxos (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's time to reclaim the community logo

Hello community,
this is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you, the Meta-Wiki users, might be particularly interested. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo (which, incidentally, is the logo of this very wiki) as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on this page; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments on the talk page. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! odder (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Careful Discussion and Consideration

Dear all, thanks to the creators of this initiative. I support the idea of it. I am writing to point out that we should be careful in the discussions here. Filing a formal complaint can be misunderstood as an aggressive step.

I am happy that the WMF takes on the responsibility to protect our trademarks. On the other hand I am unhappy that the WMF is so restrictive with the use of trademarks within the community and its affiliates, especially the chapters who have trademark agreement already in place. We need to be aware that these are logos made by the community, provided to projects run by the community. WMF should be a service organisation, controlled by the same community doing all that work. Trademark registrations are neccessary to protect ourselves.

What is IMHO needed is a "trademark agreement" which allows the WMF to fight against misuse but on the other hand allows legit community members to use it freely in line with our mission. Therefore this discussion is important but I want to urge any party to abstain from any aggressiveness or assuming bad faith. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 10:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

AbuseFilter's "abusefilter-modify-restricted" user right

Hi. I tried to edit a particularly pernicious AbuseFilter filter here earlier today (Special:AbuseFilter/60) and I learned that local administrators currently do not have the "abusefilter-modify-restricted" user right on Meta-Wiki (cf. <https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/abusefilter.php.txt>). Is there a reason for this? Abuse filter seemed to not indicate any particular reason, so I thought I'd ask here whether anyone would object to this user right being added to the "sysop" user group. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Which action listed there, specifically, is restricted? I don't understand why we can't edit this filter. Off-topic: Why should we have a filter that removes the autoconfirmed status of anyone with under 50 edits who tries to move two pages within a 15-minute period? I can understand preventing it for spam reasons, but removing autoconfirmed just seems strange. Almost all spambots have < 10 edits anyway, so that would seem to be a more reasonable limit, if one is needed at all. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are both very reasonable questions and I don't know the answer to either. :-) I just know that someone brought the filter to my attention earlier today and that when I tried to do anything to it (including un-hiding it or disabling it), I couldn't, even as a local admin. Would you support adding this user right to the local "sysop" user group? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, assuming abusefilter-modify-global is not included. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Per the SRM request I've disabled the filter for you. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes the rights to modify these filters should be added to the local sysop group. There should be no active filters on a project that can't be managed by the local administratorsa local functionary. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I infer from the description of the right (Modify abuse filters with restricted actions) that it concerns the editing of e.g. filters which can do evil things like blocking. Since blocking is not enabled by default on WMF wikis, there is no need for the rights either and therefore it is not assigned by default (& nobody noticed this when blocking was recently enabled for filters here). Since the only usage of blocking filters so far has been by stewards (but that's another issue), nobody remarked yet that the right is missing for sysops, I guess. — The only thing which I see in the filter's history which could have caused it to now need abusefilter-modify-restricted is the throttle in it (maybe the right required for imposing a throttle changed since the filter's creation or so..). --MF-W 15:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I wondered about that. Herby wasn't a Steward so something must have changed in the rights between him creating it in December 2012 and now. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: offtopic, but I'm a bit disappointed that AbuseFilter blocking was proposed for local use, but is now used only in global filters. Maybe we should at least have guidelines during the trial, like disable blocking if there are any FPs, or only use for obvious spam patterns, but the current situation worries me. It will set a precedent for real global blocking filters. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree (btw please don't "ping" me, I read everything anyway). I will write something about the global filters blocking on Talk:Global_AbuseFilter, and maybe we can discuss guidelines for the block functions for local filters on this page. --MF-W 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you can disable notifications for mentions in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Rules about blocking by abusefilter

Ideas: (this is about Meta's local filters)

• It should be used only against spammers and obvious vandalism-only accounts (can it block IPs?)
• A filter which is set to blocking should first work without false positives for quite some time (in which it also needs to get hits at all)
• A page describing the blocking filters is created, which explains why the filter was set to blocking (similar to these pages on dewiki which give details about filters' purposes and are used for discussing false positives).
• When there are false positives, the blocking function is removed until the filter is changed in such way that we can be sure this kind of false positives won't occur anymore. The use of other abusefilter functions (like preventing the action) is not affected.
  --MF-W 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For reference, the original discussion is Meta:Babel/Archives/2013-08#Allow_Meta-Wiki_AbuseFilter_to_block_as_option. As one of the only two people to oppose it, the other being Nemo, I would rather have some restrictions on its use than allow an admin to create any blocking filter they want. Your suggestions seem fine to me. If it had been proposed with those explicit rules, I may have supported. If we are going to be an "example" for other wikis to enable blocking filters (which I would oppose generally), we should set a good example and have a process for this and some actual rules, like yours proposal. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Founding principles optional for smaller Wikis?

Please comment. - Frhdkazan (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia, images

Hi, I found two interesting websites, and i want to know if i can use images from them at wikipedia. First is http://www.stadia-md.com . How you can see, author says ”All photos can be used on other websites. Please name the source www.stadia-md.com”. So, i can use their images on wiki?.If yes, which license? Fair use, or other free? Second site is http://www.soccer.ru (russian). It also haven't © symbol, and in footer is written: ”Футбол на Soccer.ru - Разработано в Nekki При использовании материалов гиперссылка на www.soccer.ru обязательна ”.
Translation mot-a-mot: ”Football at soccer.ru - Developed by Nekki. Using materials, hyperlink to www.soccer.ru is mandatory”.
Same question for this site too. --XXN (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would personally recommend contacting them, and asking them for clarification. Can the works be used for commercial purposes? Are derivations allowed? Can they be distributed freely? With the license notices given, the answers to these questions are unknown. (You can recommend that they license their work under a CC license to avoid confusion.) PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I will ask them. But, before that, i must mention - in a discution on romanian wikipedia, one local admin said that images from Stadia-md are colected from the web. He said that "for Example this page http://www.stadia-md.com/Chisinau%20Republican%20gallery.htm dates from 18 Octomber 2009. But first image from here appeared at Panoramio.com in 2007, where it is protected: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1688728 .", He also said that he will check each image and if the image has been published somewhere else in internet before the apparition at stadia-md, he will delete uploaded image at wikipedia.

And now i want to ask: Should wikipedia admins to be detectives to to verify each image in part to find where it was first published and who is its owner, while i mention as source an website that offers this image freely? IMHO in this case i can upload this image on wiki, and all problems with copy rights goes to source website (stadia-md), if they steal protected images from i-net and share them under free license. I want to know the wikimedia official point of view in this case.--XXN (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Do you know some big (sports) websites that publish their images under free licenses so i can upload them on wiki? // XXN (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist

Whenever I try to check my watchlist here on Meta, it redirects me to wikimediafoundation.org. Any idea what's going on? Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 11:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that problem still going on? See w:WP:VPT#What has happened to Commons? and bugzilla:56006. Yesterday, some projects such as Commons and Meta redirected to wmf:. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that it at least still happens for my watchlist and my user talk page. Purging or clearing cookies/cache didn't help, the problem remains. Vogone talk 12:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any information wikitech:Server admin log, but #wikimedia-tech^connect topic says "possibly some weird *.wikimedia.org cached pages" and I'm told it includes redirects to wrong domains, specifically foundationwiki. As it's cache, it shold fix itself quickly enough, I hope. --Nemo 12:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it is related, but I sometimes get weird 404 messages when nominating things for deletion on Commons: http://i.imgur.com/pSeeZY5.png --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)