← 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 oldest comment is older than 30 days.

Translations by IPsEdit

How many translations made by unregistered contributors are actually valid translations? I ask because I'm tired to delete and revert vandal or nonsense translations from IP addresses, and wonder if we could remove from unregistered contributors the permission to translate. Also, maybe we could also enable the TranslationSandbox here too. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 13:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess that valid translations of IP translations are about 2-3%. A lot of vandalism and also a lot of test edits, because probably many don't know how to use the tool and just add the original English text. I would agree with disabling the feature from IP's on Meta. --Stryn (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Certainly a very little percentage of the translations made by non registered users are really useful, I've deleted tons of test/not translated/vandalism translation units from IPs. I will not oppose your proposal.--Syum90 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I currently have no reason to believe that translations by unregistered users are less useful than the average for unregistered users (which we know from research to be way better than it looks). Also, usually the worst translations to Italian that I see sticking around are made by registered users. :) --Nemo 09:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nemo, is there a way to revocke one user from translating without blocking their accounts. TranslateSandbox] maybe? I have the same problem with spanish translations... —MarcoAurelio 11:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think *completely* disabling translating by IPs is a good idea as there are times where we receive contributions (even significant ones like whole page translations) and losing those contributions would be a huge loss for us, IMO. Instead, we should be using our antivandalism tools to reduce and prevent this. Our existing tools are apparently not sufficient so we should work to improve them before resorting to extreme measures like completely disable editing translations by IPs. I filed phab:T142292 and phab:T142293. If you also have ideas, please file them on Phabricator or add suggestions here. --Glaisher (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If you can find someone that is willing to develop those tools that'd be awesome Glaisher. That we can't protect translation pages, or do selective removal of translation rights to those users who just add crappy translations would be very welcome. In the meanwhile, maybe a soft-disable would make sense. —MarcoAurelio 11:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Minerva on desktopEdit

Hello, I'm not sure that this is the right place to ask this question but I hope you will understand me ;)

I readed somewhere in MediWiki.org that it was possible to use the mobile designed skin "Minerva" in the desktop version. But the problem is that I can't find it in the skins list in my preferences (vector, monobook, etc.). What should I do?

Thank you for your help, -- issimo 15 !? 21:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Enabling data access in user language on metaEdit

Hello folks,

We're currently working on enabling Wikidata data access in user language for metawiki. That means that all functionality that we provide, in order to make use of the data on Wikidata, will be using the users language for localization instead of English, so that each user can see the content in their preferred language.

In detail that means that the {{#property:…|from=Q1234}} parser function will output labels, dates, … formatted in the users language. The same applies to the Lua functions we provide for advanced use cases. A detailed reference of the Lua functionality we provide can be found at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Wikibase_Client/Lua.

The deployment for this new feature has been made today, August 17, 13:00–14:00 UTC. If you encounter any issue, please let us know.

Bests, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by user language? I assume you mean page content language, for the pages where it's set (such as translation pages)? --Nemo 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to enable ORES as beta featureEdit

Hello. I wonder if you'd be content on enabling mw:ORES review tool here? ORES provides automated scoring of revisions in order to aid editors. For example, ORES can predict whether or not an edit is vandalism as well as the quality level of an article. See ORES' documentation for more information about what types of scoring is available. As beta feature, only those users who would like to use it will see it, leaving all others without it. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio 17:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be good for meta. Ruslik (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Ladsgroup knows way more about ORES than I do, but AIUI we would need to create a dataset of metawiki edits to train ORES with before it can be turned on here. Legoktm (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Legoktm is right. We need to have advanced support in ORES for metawiki (See the page for further details). We might be able to get that working with basic support too but that depends on Aaron's decision. Amir (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: I have proposed to enable ORES as beta feature on es.wikibooks too (cf. b:es:Wikilibros:Café). Do you foresee any issues there too? —MarcoAurelio 11:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: For es.wikibooks the same situation applies, It would be nice to have it for es.wikipedia but the labeling campaign is not done (1210/ 8434 = 14% done w:es:Wikipedia:Etiquetando). I will talk to Aaron about how can add support for ORES in metawiki and es.wikibooks soon :) Thanks Amir (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: Thank you very much. We'd appreciate that. Sincerely, —MarcoAurelio 11:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I password protect pages?Edit

Can I protect my user subpages with a password? Thanks! Wetitpig0 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No. --Krd 11:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Set autopatrol on $wgAutopromoteEdit

mw:Manual:$wgAutopromote allows autopromotion of users to a given usergroup if certain conditions are met. I think we can configure autopatrol to be set automatically by the system to users meeting some conditions. Those conditions will have to be discussed here of course. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 13:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We appear to have no Patroller user group here, so the list of unpatrolled changes is visible only to admins. Cannot judge how these conditions should be with no data available. I guess it's sufficient to apply autopatrol manually. --Krd 13:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
What would the goals be? Do we have an insufficient number of patrolled edits due to an excessive number of edits by trusted non-autopatrolled users? Nemo 13:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Read in another language