Meta:Babel/Archives/2016-10

Requests for site rename from nowiki to nbwiki

I wrote a proposal for site rename; Requests for site rename/nowiki to nbwiki. It should probably be formatted more properly, added some templates etc, but I have a small problem figuring out where everything is located. I guess the request will create some noise, especially from the community at nowiki as the no/nb discussion is highly unpopular in that community, while the nnwiki want equally much a solution whereby the site is renamed. I'm not surprised if users from the nowiki tries to block the discussion altogether. — Jeblad 23:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If nowiki wants to stay at that domain, why start the discussion? – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jeblad: Have you filed a bug at phabricator:? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

To make it very clear; the language code no imply a site covering Norwegian, that is both Nynorsk and Bokmål. But it is not covering both language forms, it is only covering Bokmål. There is a separate site for Nynorsk with correct language code, nn, but that site lose a lot of traffic because nowiki claim it is Norwegian that is the only Norwegian site. The correct code for nowiki is nb and thus the site identifier should be nbwiki.

No, I have not set up a phabricator bug, but I can do so. (Added as Site identifier and subdomain for nowiki should be changed) — Jeblad 23:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jeblad: I'm familiar with the standards for written Norwegian (but I don't know your language). As an aside, "loose" is the opposite of "tight"--like clothing that is too large. "Lose" is the opposite of "win". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of misconception about written Norwegian, I don't assume anything, I'm only a Norwegian trying to describe the current situation and propose a solution. — Jeblad 23:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

And the fact that you are currently blocked on nowiki has nothing to do with this request? -- Tegel _(Talk) 00:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The dispute on nowiki is about blocking of a whole subnet for a major telecom provider, and no I did not do it, I told them not to do it after they did it repeatedly over several days. But then, what does that have to do with solving a several year old dispute involving use of language codes? I can hardly create a language dispute over a few hours that started before I even registered an account more than 10 years ago? And, yes I have also questioned the validity of the claims made by CU and the involved users. Several times actually. Go look it up! — Jeblad 00:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to change Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål from no to nb I think there's not much resistance against that. We have two official languages in Norway, Norwegian and Sami. Within Norwegian there are two equal written versions, Nynorsk and Bokmål. At the same time there has not been any request for changing Wikipedia Bokmål/Riksmål from no to nb in the last years, as I remember that was a discussion that largely fizzled out around 2005-2006.

If there is a demand from the active contributors on Wikipedia in Nynorsk about such a change I don't think there will be much resistance against it from the active contributors at Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål. In general many of the active contributors at Bokmål/Riksmål both support Wikipedia in Nynorsk and also see its growth as an asset, so a request from the Wikipedia Nynorsk community I assume would be met with interest and understanding. Regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing deleted pages and the WMF's stand

I believe that I have read somewhere (on Meta) that the Wikimedia Foundation excplicitly requires a community-wide election process for all user groups that are able to view deleted material. In other words, it is almost forbidden to give such a user right to someone, who has not been approved by the community concerned, as allows them to view deleted text or hidden revisions. Could someone please point me to the relevant decision or discussion? Note that this is different from the Access to nonpublic information policy, which does not apply to administrators. --Pxos (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

en:Viewing deleted content is one page in question, it's been also discussed on en:User talk:Mdennis (WMF). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This was a very useful answer. Thanks! --Pxos (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no actual policy on it, only a suggestion from WMF legal. As I have said for years now, if they want to enforce it they should work with the board and the community to make an actual policy, as they did with CU and OS rights. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually w:WP:Viewing deleted content is the right link. I agree with the Foundation position. There's a lot of nasty stuff buried there, as well as copyright infringements, and having someone passing a vote to see deleted stuff is just fine. Whether if they should make a policy for that or not, I don't know. When every general counsel of the Foundation have said that they're not confortable with handing this out liberally I trust they have legal reasons to oppose such a change. Anyway, I'm sure they won't deploy code to WMF sites if WMF legal is not content with it, and I recall seing some requests denied because of that, and that's reasonable: it's their liability as corporation what can increase, by millions of USD in some cases. They won't take that risk. —MarcoAurelio 20:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I do as well. I object on two grounds. From a procedural perspective, I see the WMF as a partner organisation to the community - they get paid to develop the software and run the servers. Therefor, they might have good reasons for wanting something to be some way, but they should express that desire through collaboration, rather than fiat. Second, there are many examples across Wikimedia where people with deleted content access are not elected strictly by an RfA, yet these cases seem to just be ignored by the Foundation. Why should these processes not be allowed to continue? Even as a steward, I grant temporary admin access to people who open requests that have no comments on them. While I do some review myself in those cases, such a case cannot be held at the same level as a full RfA. Nor does an RfA necessarily remove all risk associated with granting access to the deleted revisions, but I'll trust legal's calculations on that one. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes

• You can now set text as small or big.[1]
• Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[2] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[3]
• Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[4]
• At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department is adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more at mediawiki.org.[5]
• The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[6] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
• Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[7]

Future changes

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together

• Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

• If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

—Elitre (WMF)

17:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I want a lot of kind of Wikipedia Month

Why Wikipedia Month have only Wikipedia Asian Month? I wanna a lot of kind of Wikipedia Month. For example,stub,Europe,Africa,America,Sciences,Art,History,Philosophy,Culture,Technology,Wikipedia:Portal,and ete... --RJANKA (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@RJANKA: There is also w:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Africa/The_Africa_Destubathon on the English Wikipedia. We have a lot of work still to do to improve many topics across all of our sites, so if you want to try to organize more editors, that is welcomed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania wikis

Moved to Wikimedia_Forum#Wikimania_wikis. --Rehman 09:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Scope of #wikimedia-bans

I fail to see the scope of the IRC channel on freenode called #wikimedia-bans. I don't think it is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation but it is managed by a arbitrary committee of specific users. I know it's designed to prevent abuse but sometimes, the abuse that happens in there overflows in other channels that have zero relation to Wikimedia or its network. I'm filing a motion to have that channel shut down. --Brightez (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the metawiki community has no say on IRC issues. Regardless what we might decide here, it would not be binding. --Vogone (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding (spamblacklistlog) to abusefilter-helpers

A proposal to add viewing SBL's to the abusefilter-helpers group open at Talk:Abuse_filter_helpers#Adding_.28spamblacklistlog.29_to_the_package. Please discuss on that page, thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)