(Redirected from 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 Meta 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.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

2FA tester local group on metaEdit

Per Ruslik0 idea on Meta:Requests for comment/Enable 2FA on meta for all users, I propose a 2FA tester local group on meta which meta sysops + stewards are able to grant and remove the oauth-enable, and depreciate the global group.

  •   Support as proposer.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Ruslik (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per comments on RFC. —Sgd. Hasley 21:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not against this idea by any means, but I think it is worth noting that Babel is intended for Meta general discussion. Proposals like this would go to either Meta:Requests for comment (local) or to Requests for comment (global); this has global implications so I think the latter is more appropriate. ~riley (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    @~riley: I started here on the advice of Ruslik0. This is sort of phab changes and for the raising of autoconfirm to 5 edits was also held here which resulted in a phab change. I think this is a local meta group, so a meta local RFC will be suitable (but then there is already one for the enabling of all the 2FA on meta already), so then it can be a subsection of that RFC but will make that more complex. For the depreciating the global group, it's unfortunate I put it in such way, it should be redundant as stewards will no longer grant the global 2FA tester group, so the group is still there, but not granted. What will be granted will be the local 2FA group instead. Hope this clarifies, and will be happy to move all these to a RFC if it's needed. Feel free to discuss with me here or on IRC. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good idea.--AldnonymousBicara? 09:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. I fail to understand what is the problem we are attempting to resolve. We currently have 398 accounts in the global group. To deprecate the global group we'll need to remove all of them from the group and later delete it. There's no way to do this with a single click, nor transparently (sure a sysadmin can fiddle with the DB and do it). Is this worth the effort? (assuming we don't want to re-add them later to the local group). Secondly, what kind of benefit do we achieve from switching from global to local? Are we stewards overwhelmed by the number of requests that can't cope with them? I don't think so. Do a local group (which we'll need a Phab task each time we need to change a comma of its config, as opposed to CentralAuth groups) provide any benefits in comparison to the current global group? Maybe set it to auto-expire, but work is being done right now by Melos to implement expiring user groups; and I'm not sure we want to set this group as expiring either. And lastly, are rubber-stamping going to end (one of the reasons offered) being this a local group? Unlikely. So overall and with all due respect no convincing reason has been offered in this discussion nor in the RfC as against the current status quo. My advice is to let this stay until such time 2FA gets rolled to everyone by default (when it is safe to do so) and then yeah, nuke the global group as deprecated. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - why though? I don't understand what's wrong with the global group. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Just a quick response here, I think this thread can be closed as the RFC is on, sorry for starting here and not a RFC. Some response to the opposes above. I am basically open to whether leaving it per status quo or changing. The primary consideration of a local group will be Ruslik0 idea in the 1st RFC which states the issue of rubber stamping as well as more hands can help. This can be in response to Ajraddatz concerns. As per the points raised up by MarcoAurelio. Thanks for all the inputs. My RFC have an option we let both groups remain, though newer users who requested 2FA will be added to the local group only. As of phab concerns, yes, there are, I think since this is just 1 right with 2 groups (meta sysops, stewards) removing and adding it, the code will be simple enough. Rubber stamping won't end I guess, but the idea is basically more people rubber stamping it and to relieve some load off stewards shoulders. Just some thoughts, sorry that these are very brief as it's quite late here, will try to expand when I have the time. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that moving it to a local group will prevent rubber stamping. A clear set of criteria for granting the permissions would be more useful in that regard. I don't think the stewards are particularly burdened by these requests (indeed, back in the old days when I was a steward, people answered these requests usually within minutes). In principle I don't object to steward rights being devolved, something I have always supported (see global abusefilter editing permissions), but I think a clearer need should be established here first. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @Ajraddatz:. I am actually quite neutral in this, as some stewards had said they are tired to rubber stamp, if I can help, why not? On the other hand, having the local group doesn't mean rubber stamping will stop, is just more people having the stamp I guess. I think a way is for all stewards to comment here or a list to see if it is a net positive for this right to be devolved. If so let's do it, if not then I think we can close this and the other RFC for all meta users to have 2FA automatically as moot? Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
          • The rubber stamping argument is a non sequitur to me. If the consensus is to grant each and every request that comes to us then I may change my opinion at Meta:Requests for comment/Enable 2FA on meta for all users and let all users activate 2FA themselves, customizing the local intro message adding a big ol' fat warning in the lines of: be warned that if you mess up or don't know what are you doing don't come crying to us later. Creating a local group to continue with the rubber stamping is pointless and not worth the effort. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is no reason to change the state of affairs, or at least I haven't seen one in this proposal. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please review RFC call to action translationsEdit

Please review these translations for the Requests for comment/Ask the US government to require open access to federally sponsored research RFC. I am unfamiliar with the translations process and need help. Please note that there are only four days remaining for the deadline on this item. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Translations are typically done at Meta:Babylon talkpage. @EllenCT:. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn. The deadline passed March 16. EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Broken Babel templates for Mandarin Chinese (cmn)Edit

Currently, {{#babel:en}}, which should be for English, displays the same message as {{#babel:cmn}}, which should be for Mandarin Chinese, as well as all of their respective levels. What would be the way to go about fixing this?

User language
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.
Users by language
User language
cmn-N This user has a native understanding of English.
Users by language

Your help is greatly appreciate, please ping me if you reply. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

English is always the default if the language is unknown. When did this first start happening? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea when it started happening, I just noticed. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Its not just babel. Filing a bug report --DannyS712 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
phab:T248210 --DannyS712 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Intriguing, thank you very much for your prompt responses and action. I am curious to see how this develops. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
An additional note, on other sites, such English Wikipedia, {{#babel:cmn}} displays the sentence "This user has basic knowledge of Mandarin Chinese." which is a confusing mix since it is written in English, but correctly identified the language as Mandarin Chinese. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)