Meta:Babel/Archives/2007-12

Requests for bot status#Computer@metawiki

I was told to post something here so here it is. -- Cat ^chi? 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment (from bot status page): Bot will work on double redirects and commons delinking tasks. Sounds OK. I'll flag if no one objects. Majorly (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(OT) I added a note in Requests for bot status --.anaconda 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK flagged, I can't imagine there being any problem with this, and it already has bot status elsewhere. Majorly (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The name is not standard (it does not contain "bot") but that has been waived elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Volapük Wikipedia

Now Volapük Wikipedia is more than 100,000 articles. Please move it at http://www.wikipedia.org/ --Flrn 10:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot policy

Hello. There is currently no policy for bot access on Meta, so I propose enforcing the new crosswiki standard bot policy on Meta. If we do, a note will be added to the page explaining how to request bot access on Meta.

The page explains what is considered a bot as regards assigning bot flags, and lays out guidelines and rules for use, naming, authorization, edit speed, supervision, et cetera. It is primarily designed to streamline steward processing of such requests on other wikis, though it would also simplify the task for Meta bureaucrats. A further benefit is that the bot policy will be routinely updated to reflect the latest changes to MediaWiki, since it will be applicable on several wikis. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:23:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support this idea. I am behind on making a subpage for requests themselves, which I do think is a good idea but that there is such a page is not contradictory to adopting this policy, but rather complimentary. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. In addition requesting bot flags on mass number of wikis should be as simplified. -- Cat ^chi? 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  This policy will simplify that for linterlanguage linking bots in particular. On many wikis, this will no longer require a new discussion if the bot is already proven. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:25:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also support this proposal, as it will simplify the bot process here which is currently a big mess. —O (说 • 喝) 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It will clear up any confusions because I've seen a lot of comments of people not knowing what to do so that would probably clear it up too. --Skunkmaster II 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Call the question. I don't see anyone saying they have a big issue with this and it just seems like a good idea. Many many other wikis already use this. I suggest if there is no dissent in a few days (5?... 7?) we consider we have consensus and consider it adopted here. ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

'Tis policy now. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoting or removing proposals

Some of the new wiki project proposals are dating back to summer 2006, making it impossible to contact the proposer about the proposal because he/she isn't really watching the proposal anymore. Also, some of these proposals have 30+ users supporting it, while some others have none. Is there a set criteria for promoting and/or removing these proposals? I have yet to find any.

If not, I propose that we give any and all future proposals 3 months (1 month for projects nominated beyond 3 months ago at time of passage) to accumulate 20 or more users wishing to join the project. Also, that proposal must not violate any policy concerning project proposals here on meta.

• If a project hits the 20 user threshold, then that project is given space on the Wikimedia Incubator (or some other "incubator") for 1 year (maybe more, discretion can even be used here) to grow and develop the new wiki.

If the wiki stalls while in incubation, the wiki may be removed by an administrator.

If, toward the end of the incubation period, the wiki fails to maintain a sustainable community, usually of about 100-150+ active users, then the wiki may be removed by the board.

• Afterwards, the final proposal for inclusion as a Wikimedia project would be brought before the entire Wikimedia community. Diez2 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, incubator is only for new languages, not for new projects. Proposing a seed wiki for new projects is in some ways itself a new project. Angela 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And if I recall correctly, Incubator made it their policy recently not to accept "new project" test wiki pages. From the reason Angela pointed, I think it making a sense. --Aphaia 09:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe not the Wikimedia Incubator, some other space on Wikimedia (like I said, some other "incubator") where it can grow and maintain a viable community. Seed wikis were deprecated when the incubator came along, and I don't know whether the community wants to resurrect them. Do you? Diez2 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, you do have to admit that there needs to be a better system in place to move these proposals along the line. Right now, it seems that the current page is where proposals go to die. 50 people have shown support for the "Geneology Wiki," and though I'm not necessarily supporting the proposal, something needs to be done about it; it can't just sit there forever. Diez2 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  I would like to point out "so-and-so people support it" is not a good reason to assume that the Foundation says "go ahead". As for Geneology wikis, Wikimedia once rejected that idea in the late 2004 and let the other website pick the idea of geneology wiki. It is unlikely for the Foundation to host such a wiki again. There would be many random people bringing their idea and try to have the Foundation to fund their ideas, but it is not necessarily for us to do something for them. Serious proposals like Wikinews or Wikiversity have been considered and launched. And since I have seen no demand and community necessity to host those projects even as experiments, I am not sure if we should have such "seed-wikis", specially there are many kinds of free-hosted scratch pad wikis run by for-profit parties and after we saw some people shamelessly have tried to host advertisement on the Incubator. --Aphaia 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  Ok, I agree with you about the "so-and-so people support it" argument. Throw out the proposal. I also agree that if a proposal is against what the Foundation stands for, then it should be rejected. However, we cannot just say that this proposal cannot go through, and then do nothing about it. The Geneology Wiki proposal has been around since March 2006. We should set up a formal system that allows us to formally reject a proposal (or accept one). We can e-mail the proposer (or just leave a note on his/her talk page) saying that the proposal has been rejected and has been stored in an archive page. Also, the Foundation needs to step up here and start commenting on these proposals. The proposal page is so cluttered with proposals that it becomes impossible to read them all in one sitting. Furthermore, I don't see that any of these proposals have gone anywhere in the last 6 months. Like I've been saying, there has to be some way to move these proposals down the line, as in reject or accept them in a far more timely manner. Diez2 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  I don't oppose a new acceptance system in the community level, but as for the foundation level system, sorry I disagree. I don't want and don't think it necessary that the Foundation involved into the those things in this phase. It may increase their workload. Formal acceptance or rejection are unnecessary in my thought - most of proposals are self-abandoned and we need not to get involve the Foundation before that. I prefer to see them working on more crucial things - financial or technical infrastructure, good public relation or setting a system for quality control of existing things. --Aphaia 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  So are we saying that "everything that can be invented has been invented?" The Proposals page exists so that new projects might have a chance, albeit extremely small, to become a Wikimedia project. If you do want to minimize the Foundation's workload, then you can also minimize their involvement. For example, only the proposals accepted by the community will be sent to the Foundation (as I see it here and here, the board of trustees only got involved in accepting the creation of Wikiversity after the community entered into an extremely extensive discussion), and for the most part, proposals are actually rejected, because not many people support the idea. As for the abandoned proposals, we can e-mail the proposer giving him/her 1 week to respond, or else the proposal will be removed. We can remove many upon many of proposals this way, and at the very least clean up the page. Diez2 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal of removing abandoning proposals seems good. You could write it down and make it as policy of that page perhaps? --Aphaia 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out Wikiversity didn't come from the proposal page. It has come rather from Wikibooks, one of our existing projects. There had been a co-called sub-project since 2004 (or even before while I am not sure). In 2006 some of board members publicly spoke about the possible launching of Wikiversity and there was already a dedicated committee for launching the project. We just needed a right time and preparation to start it. So it is not the case of the proposals you are talking about, I suppose?

Honestly I don't know any project launched from the proposal page you are concerned. It hasn't been the official acceptance point of the Foundation, rather a community discussion page as well as other meta pages. That is why I think it an overreaction to ask the Foundation for intervention, saying no or yes directly. --Aphaia 03:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, should we move for deletion of this page? The whole point of this page is to suggest new projects the Foundation would take up. However, if what you are saying is correct, then no project since 2004 (when the page was created) has ever been taken from this page. Thus, lack of involvement from the Foundation defeats the purpose of having this. Diez2 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is still doing that. But the number of proposals is daunting. However, good vines need no bush. 85.211.128.219 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the Foundation is still looking at proposals on the page? Diez2 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't taken the page as a proposal for the Foundation, but rather for the community, while I don't know any project which appeared at first on that page. Realized projects seemed to come through other routes (mailing list or activity on an existing project), even the had their own page on meta at last. Also as far as I know, those realized projects were discussed elsewhere (like incubator, which we talked about for a long time, when we had some troubles about test-wikipedias on meta), but those "projects" were rarely interests of the community. Some of them were posted to foundation-l, but most of them are just unreplied. The foundation should take care of those ideas the Wikimedia community takes no action, even a gesture of denial?

So, it would be inappropriate and inefficient for us to expect them to watch the page regularly, while they are snowed with mails, phones and faxes. Rather we can think the proposal page just for brainstorming which may benefits also existing projects, I suppose, and as long as they are remaining healthy brainstorming, I see no need to alter the current situation and increasing our workload. In my observatin there is no serious problem we need to involve the Foundation. The community doesn't pay attention to those project proposals - that's all, isn't it? And I don't find any good reason the Foudation should be involved into this particular matter Wikimedia community has no interest. --Aphaia 09:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Language

Why is there not mor languages for this wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arceus fan (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify your question. Cheers! Siebrand 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant is that why are there relatively few languages available to Wikimedia and Meta-Wiki. Felipe Aira

Why was the search moved?

Why was the "search" moved way down below "beyond the web" and "community" can someone PLEASE move the search up higher. It is obvious that "beyond the web" and "community" will not be used as much as the search feature please move it. Odessaukrain 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It didn't move. Search box is placed just over the toolbox. It is impossible, at least for local admins, to place it in a higher row, unless remove two new boxes. --Aphaia 07:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For meta often functions as a foundation wiki where everybody can edit. I use hot key alt-F and I do not need to care where search bar is. Hillgentleman 07:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the two new boxes can go below the toolbox correct? Who added the two toolboxes, and where can I message them? I have my own wiki, and know this is possible, if you have the right permissions.

alt-F works thanks User:Hillgentleman. Odessaukrain 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible unless you edit the code or use an extension. – rotemliss – Talk 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pornography on cs:

Is it normal to link pornography without a reason and without a warning like Czech arbitrator and sysop Che did?[1] —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 10:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. Majorly (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Like any link on Wikipedia, it's appropriate if inserted in the right context. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that when you write about pornography, you may include some graphic link, always noticed as such. But this is completely diffent thing. cs:Wikipedie:Hlasování o smazání/Jiří Macich was an AfD about a blogger, not a pornographer. There was discussion about his notability and Che without a warning put the link to pornography. What if somebody opened this link in a public place? —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 13:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you bothered asking Che why the link was added? I don't speak Czech, so I can't really tell how relevant it was, but I don't think we should concern ourselves with every "what if..." scenario possible. EVula // talk // 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be useless. I wrote him several e-mails before, he never replied to me. I asked several Czech wikipedians to repair it, they ignored me as well. It is completely useless to try repair anything in cs: by Czech wikipedians.

It is totally irrelevant. Jiří Macich has nothing in common with pornography. He may be not notable, but why pornography site should be a comparative? Why pornography is not marked as such? What about if somebody would include Che's link into the article en:Russia? Or its discussion? —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

sv-o

Can you add a sv-0 template to my page?--Arceus fan 15:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done The template didn't exist before, so I duplicated the text and all from the en.wp version. EVula // talk // 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation combination boxes: Shortcuts for Serbian

Hello. I want to ask what is the criteria for these three-letter shortcuts? For instance, I see that German language is being represented with "deu" (first three letters of the original word "Deutsch"), while Serbian language had to be "ser", which are first three letters of "Serbian". Since the original word is "Srpski", following the same pattern as for German would result with the shortcut "srp".

ISO 639-3 standard defines three-letter shortcut for Serbian as "srp". What are your references?--freeman-sr ^ta_Lk 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm... since you reference (see this page) the same as I, I will take a small action of correcting this. There is only few pages to be moved / remade.--freeman-sr ^ta_Lk 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Someone should delete the following categories, since they ain't supposed to be of use anymore:

• Category:Translators ser-eng
• Category:Translators ser-deu
• Category:Translators eng-ser
• Category:Translators deu-ser

--freeman-sr ^ta_Lk 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I just tagged those categories for speedy deletion; should be gone soon. EVula // talk // 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Recentchanges

Hello all. Since the header for the recent changes is very large people with small computer screens have to scroll a lot down before being able to see the actual rc. I would like to suggest a table similar to wikt:de:MediaWiki:Recentchangestext which is expanded per default for all users but it can be set in the users personal monobook.js to have it closed per default. If there are no objections I would like to add this to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, thanks, greetings, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove a good chunk of the code? While links to every edition of Wikisource are nice, it has very little relation to recent changes on Meta (though I'm aware of the "centralness" of Meta, I'm not convinced that this is a particularly relevant way of doing that). Basically the entire "Projects" section is irrelevant, and "Organization" isn't much better... EVula // talk // 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

...and apparently Pathoschild agreed with me.[2] :) EVula // talk // 05:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that is much better. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Still seems like maybe more trimming might be possible? We can set up Bryan's bot to watch more things. ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The "live RC" bit could probably be removed (especially the "edit" link, since it is usable by only 0.15% of the editors here), and is redundant to the "Chat" link on the Discussions line. EVula // talk // 14:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit bit could be, but live rc should stay - it isn't redundant as it's a direct link to the IRC feed. The chat link goes to a page all about every IRC channel. Majorly (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

@"live RC" removing that would not reduce the height of the header. I personally like the edit link, I find it practical :) but I would not object if You decide to remove it. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems not everyone is in favor of removing those links. This was not what I proposed anyhow. It would be nice to have some opinions about this table which can be flapped in per click but is opened per default (the rc would look pretty much the same as they do now). Thanks --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 12:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

imho Pathoschild did the right thing. removing superfluous links is a much better idea than trying to hide you have too many of them. btw, the table could be a bit wider. in my browser the "useful"-row is split in two lines. -- ∂ 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've written JavaScript which adds the links to Special:Recentchanges (screenshot). If anyone else wants to use it, see the documentation page. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:36:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility?

Is there a procedure for dealing with a user who is showing incivility in discussions? User:Elephas's contributions to the discussion about the proposal for closing the Volapük Wikipedia are unusally belligerant and offensive (including words like 'vomit', 'fart' etc. to offend the language in question). His or her behavior in other discussions is also belligerant: he or she tends to belittle the language community and the language itself with very strong words (just click on some of his contribs). Yet his or her behavior in the Volapük discussion is worse than usual. Maybe a message could be sent to him or her to indicate that this behavior is frowned upon? --Smeira 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Upload

Hi all, I noticed that we have lots of image uploads which are without licence and have nothing to do with meta. I have very good experiences with wikiprojects where we restricted the upload to sysops only, but if You find this too extreme, we could change the link on the left navigation sending people right to commons, while Special:Upload will continue to work (we have it like this on de.wiktionary). Please tell me what You think about this suggestion, if it was already suggested in the past and rejected, please let me know, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall it being suggested, at least recently. There's very rarely any need for anyone to upload any images here, so that might be a good idea. Majorly (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; there are many images more appropriate to Meta than commons, ranging from screenshots for user styles or scripts to user images and Wikimania bid images. I would favour a prominent notice on the upload page explaining what should be uploaded to Commons instead. Any image without copyright or source data can already be deleted (see the upload warning and inclusion policy). —{admin} Pathoschild 18:30:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any differences in the media policies of Meta and Commons? If not, I think it is a good idea to mangage media as centralised as possible. Siebrand 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since we're not talking about removing Special:Upload from meta, just changing the link so that the bulk of the uploads go to Commons. For people uploading images that have an extremely limited usage (such as bid images that only need to be used here), they can still upload locally. EVula // talk // 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be an all or nothing approach. A little bit of both is worse. As you may read in my previous comments, I am strongly in favour of closing any local upload on Wikimedia wikis. Siebrand 14:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can think of instances where there's no actual benefit to having the images on Commons, such as pictures that are only useful for Wikimania bids (though the example that Pathoschild gave is an exceptionally poor example, as it is on Commons and is currently in use on eight different projects). Editors should be highly encouraged not to upload photos here, but if there's no benefit to any project other than Meta, why bother uploading them to Commons? EVula // talk // 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of standards. Currently each wiki needs its image policy, new upload checkers, etc. Bsaically it is a waste of resources, as all required knowledge and infrastructure is available centrally. If the result would be that 0.25% of the media on Commons would be used only in one wiki, that is not a problem at all. I wouldn't be surpised if this is what is happening already - and that is not a problem. Cheers! Siebrand 07:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an excellent point. I know some of the photos I've taken (that live on Commons) are only used on en.wp. Consider me swayed; down with Meta uploads! ;) EVula // talk // 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So how should we go about to implement this proposed policy of not allowing local uploads on meta? Should we have more discussion (where?), organise a vote (where?), or decree consensus ;)? Siebrand 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Add in a subsection below. People can vote on it. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. The vote will start in 9 hours. Siebrand 13:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe there are some policy differences but I'd have to actually read closely to be able to say exactly what... There have been deletions of things at Commons that Meta users uploaded for use here, and some hard feelings were engendered. I'd like to see, for example, Aphaia's comments on the idea of channeling uploads to Commons, as I think she has some perspective on that, before I'd support it. However, meanwhile I'd support a much more stringent warning about what is suitable, and a much firmer enforcement of existing deletion policy for stuff that's off the mark. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sad to hear that. However the warning actually looks like this MediaWiki:Uploadtext, I wonder how big the "Attention"-notice has to be so people actually do notice it :( (I personally think they don't care about those warnings).

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 14:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, you have two things you comment on:

• Personal preferences/negative experiences: we cannot please anyone. I do not know when the experiences of the user you quote have been. Commons changes and everyone on Commons (except those that are blocked after a while) want the best for both Commons and the local projects.
• Usability/repurposing of media: that is a POV statement. The power of Wikimedia projects can only fully thrive if we leave room for uses we have not thought of. I for sure would like to keep that room, even if I think that media are single purpose, I cannot be vcertain of that, because there are a potential 6,400,000,000 opinions. Siebrand 14:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea making local uploads more difficult (or impossible) here. If a file is freely licensed, and of use at Meta, than it shouldn't be any problems with the Commons' regulations. If it's not freely licensed, than it shouldn't be allowed here either, since Meta doesn't have an EDP. --Boivie 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the Board resolution, a media policy of the wiki cannot be more free than the one on Commons if it does not have an EDP. Hence, we should conclude that meta's media policy is equal to that of Commons, or more restricted, which would not make sense... Cheers! Siebrand 07:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• If meta hasn't yet got an EDP, there are good reasons to have one. Do not forget this option and fall into a false dichotomy. -Hillgentleman 18:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to understand why many people are uploading off topic files here. I noticed that a large portion of these users thought they were on their (non-Wikimedia) wiki; they're not connected with Wikimedia, and probably came here while reading the MediaWiki help pages. It is a good idea to send them to Commons, but I would prefer if a customized upload page is displayed, rather than the default one intended for Wikimedians. Alternatively, another solution would to direct them to a new upload page here on Meta (like fr:Aide:Importer un fichier, for example). Korg + ⁺ 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, my above comment was just about to change the upload link, but not to disable uploads on Meta. While in practice the files uploaded here could go to Commons, I'd say sometimes it's more convenient to upload (and then to handle) certain files locally. I could cite files used for test purposes ([3]), for the various pages under construction here ([4], [5]), or for other defensible reasons ([6], [7]). Incidentally, some images used to build the fundraiser pages, such as Image:Sostext.png, were deleted on Commons... [8] [9] (Ok, with good reason, but sometimes practical considerations should prevail).

So I would oppose the closing of local uploads. The goal of the initial suggestion was to curb the flood of uploads out of Meta's scope; changing the upload link should reach it, without even interfering with legitimate uploads. Korg + ⁺ 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vote Discussion on closing local uploads for meta.wikimedia.org

In the above discussion, it appears that there may be consensus for closing local uploads on meta.wikimedia.org, as the media policy for meta is equal to that of Commons and it has no EDP(1). This vote will start on Sunday 21 October 2007, 0:00 UTC and will last for 14 days, until Saturday 3 November 2007, 23:59 UTC. A majority of 55% of confirmed voters is needed before a request for closing local uploads is made on bugzilla:. The quorum for this vote is 20 irrelevent as it is not binding.

Participants in this vote are requested Errto choose from the following options:

• I support the request to close local uploads for meta.wikimedia.org
• I oppose the request to close local uploads for meta.wikimedia.org

You are allowed to add a statement to your vote. Please keep it short. Further discussion should be added below the vote. Neutral votes are not allowed. Siebrand 13:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

---

---

• Siebrand, With which criteria did you set your percentages? This cannot come from bugzilla, can it? Have you any precedences? Hillgentleman 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have set the criteria to a majority. The 55% rule is used in all votes on the Dutch language Wikipedia and it works well. As for it being arbitrary: that is correct and it is exactly the point. Setting it at 99% would be rediculous, for example, setting it below 50% would also be awkward. I choose 55%. However, I fear that getting 20 users to vote may be harder than getting the 55%... Cheers! Siebrand 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I take it that you cannot find any precendence in this on meta. Let us agree that this issue is more important than sysop confirmation. Yet even sysop confirmation requires 75% support. There is real danger in setting such a low threshold, in that the argument may spill over to bugzilla. That is why community consensus, and not majority, is necessary. --Hillgentleman 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I shall not alter your signed comment, but I propose that your time limit, quorum, and 55% threshold be ignored, for it is a matter for reasoned discussions; and that there be no action until consensus is reached, for it is not an emergency. --Hillgentleman 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the request to close local uploads for meta.wikimedia.org, but support limiting uploads

1. Images that would be acceptable here would be compatible with Commons. EVula // talk // 14:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
   Addendum Because of Commons' additional level of scrutiny on public-domain imagery, I can better understand uploading directly to Meta instead. I don't think it's quite as bad as the "purge" scenario seems, but it's a valid enough concern to at least strongly recommend that people upload to Commons instead. EVula // talk // 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Per EVula. But we should not disable uploads completely, just limit them to admins. Majorly (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
3. The Commons copyright policy is not equivalent to Meta's policy. In particular, Commons requires that images be in the public domain in their country of origin and in the United States, while Meta policy only concerns itself with the United States where it is legally located. Commons policy is particularly problematic since other countries sometimes retroactively restore copyright (such as Russia effective 01 January 2008); this results in purges on Commons, while the images continue to be acceptable on Meta. Since many of our images are used on historical pages like Wikimania bids, any such images deleted would likely never be replaced, resulting in the gutting of Meta historical pages. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:13:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair, I think there are plenty of Commons admins around here (such as myself) that would be more than willing to retrieve the imagery from Commons and upload it here, which would restore the Meta articles to their pre-Commons-purge state. "Gutting Meta" is a little overdramatic in my opinion, though I will concede that it would be an inconvenience. EVula // talk // 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

4. limit to admins or if Special:Upload stays active: replace the navigationbarlink on the left. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
5. I would favour some tightening, such as more strongly worded warnings, non default text, even limiting to admins only, but per Pathoschild and others, I oppose completely disallowing image uploads at Meta. Like EVula, I stand ready to retrieve things from Commons if needed in any case, just ask. ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
6. --Thogo (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) limiting to sysops would be ok, most active people on Meta are sysops (if not they can/should apply).
7. Slade ♠ 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
8. I think we should do more to encourage uploading to commons: though it should be a gradual process. The first step could be as easy as adding Upload file to commons: to the navbar. xaosflux ^Talk 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the request to close local uploads for meta.wikimedia.org

1. Some images are not really commons-made. --OosWesThoesBes 08:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
2. I oppose this vote, with a threshold arbitrarily set, and almost obscenely low on an issue that has has site-wide consequences, and without a clear-cut statement (see, e.g. Majorly's comment of support). --Hillgentleman 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Siebrand 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC) vote changed. With the vote new option, there is no gain in this. Siebrand 10:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• @OosWesThoesBes: you state: "Some images are not really commons-made.". What exactly do you mean by that? Siebrand 12:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not perfect in English so I'll say what I thought in Dutch so you can translate it for other people: Sommige aafbeeldingen zijn niet echt gangbaar voor op Commons, ze zijn alleen maar voor gebruik op Meta. Looking to Wikipedias like Limburgish, many .ogg files are uploaded with the Limburgish pronouncation, they are only relevant for li.wikipedia than for another project. The same is on Meta. --OosWesThoesBes 17:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Pathoschild: we're disabling uploads, not deleting every single local image. Majorly (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  The point is that, if you put all you new images in commons today, there is a danger that external circumstances will cause them to disappear, without your knowing, next month. - Hillgentleman 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, this would affect future historical pages, like Wikimania 2008/Bids. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:08:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  FWIW that page is already historical ;) I agree that they would be affected, if the images are deleted from Commons. But why would they be? Majorly (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  Their copyright status in their source country may change, and be deleted despite being in the public domain in the United States. This is not as uncommon as we might like to think; see, for example, a discussion about the status of Russian works on Wikisource after a change to Russian copyright law effective in January 2008 will retroactively restore copyrights. A similar problem even occurred in the United States with the ratification of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act effective 1996. While we can be reasonably sure that there will be few such restorations in the United States, it becomes very problematic when their inclusion also depends on their status in their source countries. See discussion below about why Commons' choice to require that images be in the public domain in their source country is neither required nor applicable on Meta. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:30:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  Given the Board resolution, this is no longer relevant. Per March 2008, the policy *must* be equal to that of Commons, unless there is an EDP... Historical lack checking for correct licenses is not relevant, IMO. Siebrand 18:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  No, Commons' copyright policy goes beyond the licensing policy resolution. Commons requires that works be in the public domain in the United States and in their source country to ensure that images can be used in as many jurisdictions as possible. This requirement is not part of the licensing policy resolution, and is not applicable to Meta since our goal is not to make our content available for redistribution in many international jurisdictions. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:30:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  Please explain how the above complies with the complete contents of this wiki having a GFDL or more free license. It appears to me as you may be trying to invent a loophole/restriction here that is not relevant. Siebrand 19:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  Consider:

  1. Works in the public domain are compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. The public domain criteria for the United States do not match those in other countries, because these depend on national copyright laws. National copyright laws can change, and can retroactively restore copyrights.
  2. Commons copyright policy requires that an image be in the public domain in both the United States and the source country. Meta and the Foundation's copyright policy require that a work be in the public domain in the United States only. In both cases, the content is free.
  3. Therefore, Commons policy results in the deletion of images that are in the public domain in the United States if their copyright situation changes in their source country (but not the United States).

  Any mass deletion of images used on historical pages that are valid on Meta (but not on Commons) is not acceptable. I would favour limiting local uploads, but not disabling them. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:59:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Too bad the 'oppose'-section does not contain the other proposal to choose: replacing the link on the left hand side either to Commons or like Korg proposed to a new upload page (but keeping Special:Upload active). Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  I've added a middle option (limiting uploads), since nearly half the voters were clarifying that they supported limiting uploads rather than prohibiting uploads. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  Thank You, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for heavens' sakes. We don't do binding votes - here or anywhere else. Please don't abuse the wiki to suggest that we will. James F. (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes we do. Steward/board elections are just two example I can think of. It certainly isn't abuse, that's just your opinion. Majorly (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

These are foundation issues, not meta issues. Hillgentleman 14:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anywhere else" could easily mean those things. Majorly (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening votes just some days ago the discussion had opened and changed the rules after the vote had opened? And at the moment the fundraising drive begans and most of meta regulars has no time to get involved to this domestic or Commons/Meta politics fight? This vote is too poorly organized to adopt any "result" to this wiki. How messy. I strongly oppose to have a vote on this issue in this manner. --Aphaia 13:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I "voted", I've half a mind to strike it (although I thought it was a good compromise suggestion) because I agree with Aphaia, let's talk this through when there's more time (right now is not so great) and get to a consensus about what to do rather than voting. The wiki won't blow up if we do or don't allow uploads so there is time to get to the right answer. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Favicon suggestion

Hello, I'm afraid this might not be the right place to ask this since I'm pretty new to metawiki and you all seem to be discussing very important things (like, umm... porn?), but I was wondering about the favicons of wikipedia and wiktionary wich happen to be also the ones used in the search engine extensions (the ones that can be added to firefox and IE7). Both are the same, so, couldn't there be a little change (like, a colored border or something like that) to help differentiate them when bookmarked or added to the search engine list (some of us don't use text labels)? I know this is very trivial and, if this doesn't belong here, please tell me where should I make this suggestion.

There is a bug about it, Bug 6096. If a favicon is suggested and accepted by the Wiktionarians, it may be changed. (Wikibooks and Wikiversity already have their own favicon.) – rotemliss – Talk 09:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Disabled HTML

In playing with a potential template layout, I thought I'd whip out two of my new favorite HTML tags, <fieldset> and <legend>, only to find out that they don't work at all. Any reason these HTML tags are disabled? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nearly all hypertext markup is disabled by default. A small subset of HTML elements is explicitly allowed; it's possible to enable HTML completely, but the security risk means it will likely never be enabled on the Foundation's public wikis. For an archived discussion on the reasons not to enable it, see w:Talk:HTML/Archive 1#Restricted_HTML.3F. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:07:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can completely understand disabling a good chunk of HTML, as there's no reason for, say, meta tags. But the above tags I would have found exceptionally useful (this question is closely tied to our discussion about the interlanguage template). *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Those two can only be used inside <form> elements; how would they be useful to translation interlinking? If you want to add tags to the whitelist, poke the developers. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 07:18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've used them before without <form> to format a page... though, granted, the page was a form, just without the form tag yet. I was thinking of using fieldset to do the overall border effect, with the legend tag being the "language" text (which we both agreed wasn't needed). It can be quite handy at the right place.
Since it's largely for cosmetic purposes, I won't bother bugging the devs about it; I really don't imagine it being handy for any other purpose (especially since we can get the same effect, more or less, with a regular div tag, and the legend tag isn't too important). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay

Something like this? —{admin} Pathoschild 02:06:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

...and there's another reason not to bother the devs about turning it on. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hide Main page title

I'm administrator in gl:wiki. Shouldn't be better to hide the "Main page" text to get better use of space. I'm trying to perform it in gl:wiki but I still don't know. It's not explained in Help:Page name or Help:Section. Do you know how? Sobreira 15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Add this code to gl:MediaWiki:Common.css:

.page-Portada .firstHeading { display:none; }

—{admin} Pathoschild 20:37:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :D --Sobreira 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:24:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IDN test Wikis

For those who haven't seen it yet, ICANN started 11+1 IDNwikis related to the 11 IDN (I18N Domain Names) test TLDs (Top Level Domains). ICANN uses MediaWiki, somebody who knows more about it than me should advise them if that could ruin their IRIs and/or invalidate their test pages in 2008.

Frank 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues: language and scope of a project?

I incidentally discovered that there was a West Flemish wikipedia. At first sight I thought it was rather fun and sympathetic. West Flemish, for those who would not know, is a group of dialects spoken mainly in Belgium and Netherlands. But then I found this page, "Goal of the West Flemish Wikipedia", where it states that the mission of the group behind the West Flemish Wikipedia is to fix the West Flemish vocabulary and language. The West Flemish encyclopedia of Wikipedia is not the goal, it is just a tool to achieve the mission.

A bit further in the text, there is also the following that confirms that West Flemish is not a language but a group of dialects (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article): "we do not have any written reference point, be it for vocabulary, spelling or grammar, and there are important differences between regions"

This raised some questions for me, and I hope somebody can help me sorting them out:

The first question is: what are the languages in which a Wikipedia can be created? I guess an answer can be "any language for which there is a number of people who wish this wikipedia to be created". But is that the answer? Are dialects OK? I mean, when a language doesn't even have some source to determine what the correct form is, no vocabulary...I do not mean we should refuse local languages, but there seems to be ways to make the difference between a dialect and a local language, such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

I had a look at Meta:Language proposal policy, and it appears that the West Flemish WP would probably not have been created under that policy. Requests for new languages/Wikipedia West Flemish shows us that this project was created before the draft policy even existed (probably January 2006) based on a very small number of votes from flemish people.

Second, what can be the goal of a Wikipedia? In this case, the goal does not seem to be the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is defined as a tool to achieve the goal, which is to determine the vocabulary and the grammar of West Flemish. Honestly, I do not consider this being an acceptable goal for a wikipedia, and it is seems logical that a Wikipedia in a dialect would have this kind of actual goal. Bradipus 13:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: 1. Is the page vls:Wikipedia:Doel West-Vlaamse Wikipedia endorsed by an entire community? A group of wikipedians can hold whatever points of views; it doesn't mean they are not writing an encyclopaedia.

2. What do you mean by "no vocabulary"? In some minority languages, there are problems in the lack of standard writing. It doesn't mean that wikipedia should be stopped by such problems. Hillgentleman 15:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No idea. The page is there since more than a year and has not changed much. The community is probably small (2 207 article created in more than a year). If this kind of goal actually is an issue, maybe somebody should go and talk to these fellows.

2. I mean nothing, I just try to translate what they write as their goal. If their goal is to secure (vastleggen) vocabulary, it means that they have an issue in the determination of what the west flemish vocabulary is. I suspect part of the issue is the fact that west flemish is a flemish dialect that has no specific vocabulary for a lot of subjects. Bradipus 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Plausibly related topic may be found at Talk:Proposals for closing projects. Your participation to the discussion will be welcome. --Aphaia 10:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An underlying agenda beneath many of the smaller Wikipedias is language preservation -- revival of extinct languages and preservation of endangered languages. In its weakest and mildest form, I think that's congruent with our broad educational mission of collecting and disseminating free information to the world -- these languages themselves are a form of human knowledge. Many of the endangered and extinct languages are old and projects here help retain their knowledge.

Then there are constructed languages such as Interlingua and Esperanto that have established communities and are important in field of linguistics. Finally, we have Simple English, which serves an important purpose in helping readers acquire English and information that's in English.

I get nervous when a language-advocacy agenda is pushed a bit stronger -- as with the failed European Portuguese proposal -- and I get downright alarmed when one of our projects turns into a downright POV, demagogic platform such as the now closed Siberian Wikipedia. In these cases, a few people wanted to create new forks of existing languages (Portuguese and Russian) from slight dialect differences. Globally, the most invasive and illogical of the big languages is English and both the world and our English language projects seem to get along OK (on the whole) with a mishmash of Britlish, Yanklish and even, occasionally, Europanto.

The wording cited above makes me nervous -- does that reflect West Flemish Wikipedia community consensus? It seems like POV-pushing and a deviation from Wikimedia's goals. Contrary to the writer's assertion, our Wikipedias are the goal from Wikimedia's standpoint and anything else is secondary at best. If they can't buy into that, I suggest we part ways amicably and they can port their work to date to another host (Flemopaedia?) running MediaWiki or other wiki software.

Beyond this, I defer to linguists and people familiar with that area and the West Flemish language/dialect. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy or discussion about consistency between same topic articles in different languages?

--> Discussion moved to metapub. Hillgentleman 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible trademark violations

To whom should we direct queries about external sites which might be abusing Wikimedia Foundation trademarks? Physchim62 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's best to send them a friendly letter first telling that they're doing this in case they were unaware. If they don't respond to that, then you can escalate the situation via Wikimedia's General Counsel, Mike Godwin. Angela 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Angela, the contentious item has now been removed from the external site so I think we can call the situation resolved. Physchim62 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some input please

There are some dark & dusty parts on Meta that could do with some more views please! I have two specific issues in mind. Firstly there is TV.com on the Interwiki map talk page. There seem arguments in both directions but little input.

Then there is gportal.hu on the Spam blacklist. There have been a series of request to block pages from this site & in the end a request to block the whole site which was done. However there are now arguments as to whether this was rather harsh to be balanced against the work of continually adding pages.

Hope to see some input on both - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links not working

Interwiki links are not working in Template:NowCommons. Does anyone know why? --Meno25 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no Meta-Wikis in other languages to link to. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:16:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links on Meta should link to Wikipedia. See commons:Commons:GNU Free Documentation License where interwiki lniks are working properly. (In this case, there are no Commons-Wikis in other languages to link to.) --Meno25 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, interwiki links like en:foo work. Interlanguage links don't, because there's no other Meta-Wiki to link to. Meta and Wikipedia have very little in common; it would make more sense to have sidebar links to wikis like wikimediafoundation.org than to Wikipedia, and those are best left inline. Thus, interlanguage links are disabled entirely. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. --Meno25 22:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Bot Status

I'm requesting BOT status for User:Fluxbot. Task: Processing approved Category renames. Identical to en:user:Fluxbot. xaosflux ^Talk 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to me. No objections. I think our process for bot approvals is a bit muddy though. ++Lar: t/c 10:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

PS please see Bot policy which applies to bot operations here, it's been adopted as the standard, per Meta:Babel#Bot policy... do you think you could do a small test run? ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Running trial now, will post results here when done. Muddy for sure, it appears that Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Request_for_bot_flags, Requests for bot status, and Bot policy need some merging. Will look in to soon. I'm assuming that we want to go with the newer Bot policy though. xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for bot status if for other wikis (that stewards will give bot status to) and M:RFA#Requests for bot flags is for local bots that will operate on meta. Bot policy is just the policy, so I'm not sure how we'd merge all of them. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 03:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that they all have directions regarding bots here on meta: Some are a little ambiguous, merge was the wrong word, clarify would be better! xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, bot trial ran see Contribs for log. Thought this would be a much longer run required to process a recent category rename but most of the pages got their cat's from templates. Still, should be useful for the future, let me know if any adjustments are requested. Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two different instructions for local requests: on Requests for bot status: "Local requests for the Meta-Wiki: start a discussion in Meta:Babel, then ask a flag in Meta:Requests for adminship#Request for bot flags."; on Bot policy: "To request bot access on Meta, hold a discussion at Meta:Babel for at least a week. If there is no significant opposition, post a request at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat." Which instruction should be followed? Is it necessary to make a request at Meta:Requests for adminship#Requests for bot flags, if it is already discussed on Babel? Korg 15:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh really? :P I say move the whole discussion to Meta:Requests for adminship. I don't know why this page is involved, it seems pointless to discuss it here and then request somewhere else. May as well have it all together. Majorly (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with that, it's probably best that way. Cbrown1023 talk 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be my preference as well. I'm not sure why it ended up being worded that way. I seem to recall discussing this above, and wondering then too after Majorly changed it around part way, I'd say let's change it the rest of the way and be more || with Commons for example, where bots are discussed entirely on the RfA page (although it's done there as a transclusion so the bot discussion can also be seen somewhere else). But this may be off topic for Xoloz's bot though :) Props to Majorly for all the reorging he's been doing lately, don't stop now! ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be Xaosflux not Xoloz I assume? ;) Majorly (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

eXactly. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Before, some of the few requests for bot flags were informally discussed here. But it makes sense to have all local requests on the same page. :) Thanks for your comments. Korg 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Following this discussion, the instructions in the pages mentioned above have been updated. Korg 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me. Korg 14:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I do a lot of bot work on en: and it's a big process, but we get a LOT of requests. If there is a chance that the discussion will get long, another good place to discuss it would be on the bot's talk page, with a link in the appropriate venues (maybe on here AND rfa?) xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the first time I've meen confused with Xoloz! xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any on-topic :) feedback on my bot request? xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are SO no fun. Test run looks reasonable and I have no objections to this bot getting flagged. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I watched the run and as no one has raised objections the flag is Done. Equally I do think further requests should be made as suggested above --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AJAX transclusion table

Screenshot

Hello, I suggest implementing the AJAX transclusion table script. This script adds a "[show]" or "[hide]" link to every row in tables with the "attable" class. Clicking the link will display the linked page below (see screenshots at right). No show/hide link will be shown in rows with no link to an existing local page (like heading rows).

This has several possible uses, such as Requests for new languages/table or User:Pathoschild/AJAX Welcome (translating templates without the need for the reader to download every version). If there's no objection, I'll add the following code to the site JavaScript, which will only call the full code if such a table is found on the page.

/*************
*** AJAX transclusion table <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Scripts/AJAX_transclusion_table>
*** by [[m:user:Pathoschild]]
*************/
if(getElementsByClassName(document.getElementById('bodyContent'),'table','attable').length) {
	document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
	  + 'http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pathoschild/Scripts/AJAX_transclusion_table.js' 
	  + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
}

—{admin} Pathoschild 18:09:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please try explaining this again? The screenshot didn't help as much as I thought it would. How does this differ from normal show/hide behaviour done with divs? What are the disadvantages of doing this? ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The scripts you're referring to (NavFrame and Language select) hide parts of the current page, by adding or removing the CSS "display:none" declaration; browsers download the full text of the page, then make some of it invisible with CSS. The AJAX transclusion table serves a different purpose, dynamically displaying the contents of other pages. It doesn't download anything until the user selects what they want to view, then it downloads only that. This is useful for heavy request pages like Requests for new languages or w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but the same technique can be applied for many other purposes like displaying translations (without downloading every translation available), making lists of templates expandable into examples and documentation, et cetera.

So you can't accurately compare them, since they serve different purposes. That said, the AJAX script has some advantages:

• Much faster loading: a transclusion table doesn't download any hidden content at all, but instead downloads content on demand. For example, using NavFrame or Language select on Requests for new languages would result in a 230KB page (with perhaps 4% of that actually being read by the user), while the AJAX table results in a 7.3KB page (96% smaller). You can see the difference that makes by visiting Requests for new languages (imagine it has show/hide links), then visiting Requests for new languages/table (imagine same).
• Flexibility: The AJAX table can display any page on Meta (not only what is on the current page or template). For example, you could have a template with a list of help pages on your user page, so you can click "[show]" beside any page to quickly read it. I've seen templates on enwiki with "quick-reference" links to various templates; the "[show]" links on those templates would display the template with its documentation.
• Ease-of-use: To create an AJAX transclusion table, you just add class="attable" to any normal table; any rows with links will have a new "[show]" link that displays the content of the row's first link. In contrast, NavFrames are very complicated to use (see example code).

—{admin} Pathoschild 03:56:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can try it yourself by following the brief installation instructions and viewing Requests for new languages/table, which is an AJAX transclusion table. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:27:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Can one transclude a section? Hillgentleman 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, although that's a good idea to implement later. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:35:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that it can take weeks before most users see changes to the site JavaScript, I've implemented it now. We can remove it if serious objections appear in this discussion. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 20:02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm...

• script doesn't seem to work in IE6
• script doesn't seem to work in Opera 9
• script breaks for some old skins, e.g. Nostalgia
• &dontcountme=s is really obsolete
• notice on MediaWiki talk:Common.js would be nice (I don't watch this forum)

However, the idea itself is nice and I support it. I suggest we move e.g. to Editing User talk:Pathoschild/Scripts/AJAX transclusion table to dicsuss technical details ∴ Alex Smotrov 06:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to my talk page; I prefer to keep discussions in few places, so they're easier to keep track of. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:53:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Coherency in policies -- consensus vs. voting

We're having a bit of an argument on the Romanian Wikipedia regarding the implementation of consensus in practice, and we'd appreciate some input from outside. We are currently discussing a new policy proposal, wherein disputed changes to policies would be settled by voting. The current proposal would not affect other policies, such as Consensus, which would still stand. However, when a change to policies is disputed and consensus is not reached, it is proposed that voting would settle the issue one way or another (basically by asking "do you want to make this particular change to the policy or not?"). This proposal itself is disputed and is also subject to voting on whether it should become a policy or not. Should it pass, the final form of the policy will explicitly state that basic Wikipedia policies are not subject to voting (such as NPOV, copyright issues, etc).

The questions we have for you are:

1. Is voting in this manner against the basic Wikipedia policies? If so, are other local Wikipedias free to implement it as a solution?
2. If not, how is consensus reached in situations where discussions on the topic are leading nowhere?

If there is another more appropriate place to ask this, please let me know.

Thank you,
Gutza 10:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Some significant issues brought up when voting are: Thresholds for passing (majority, some super-majority?); along with how to handle more then 2 options on your issue; and what suffrage requirements to have. Some meta essays on voting are: Voting is a tool, Polls are evil, and Don't vote on everything. xaosflux ^Talk 13:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: After a long discussion a community may converge to the opinion that any decision is better than no decision. (E.g. driving on the left or driving on the right.) In this case, deciding it with a poll does not contradict the spirit of consensus. Hillgentleman 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fundraising 2007/Why Give blog

Who exactly choses which blogs are posted and are featured in the donate tab? --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Read this for details. --Meno25 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RC messed

RC is messed up, or is that just for me? the pages seem to be unclickable, and the white space below the page is huge. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I don't have the same problem. Try to clear the cache, if this does not help, please make a screenshot for us. Please also click the following links:

rc|action=purge

rc|action=render

Thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 08:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks a lot. That fixed it up perfectly. Regards, and thanks again. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Status of a steward banned from a community

Hi all. I have some questions:

1. Is a steward who is banned from a community still allowed to interfere, in any way, with the community that bans him/her?

2. Is a steward who is blocked in a community still allowed to interfere, in any way, with the community that blocks him/her?

Thanks. HOTUMA 14:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If a community is large enough to out-right ban someone, they probably have their own admins and bureaucrats, so the need for steward interaction is likely very, very low. Unless there's extenuating circumstances (such as the banned steward being the only steward that reads that particular language), I'd say that the steward should steer clear of the community that banned them; with more than 700 different WMF sites, I think there's plenty of work to be done that avoidance wouldn't be difficult. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that a steward would not be permitted to take any actions relating to the community that they are banned on (and would be warned if they did so) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I am eased now. She showed a minimum faith to our community. I rarely tell a future but now hope that she will not be banned. HOTUMA 11:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone banned on a project shouldn't interfere there. It would be highly inapropriate if a steward did so, and a blatant abuse of the steward rights. A community outranks a steward. --Jorunn 13:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Steward is not a rank. Hillgentleman 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nor is community. ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 10:09:12, 03 December 2007 (UTC)