Meta:Babel/Archives/2018-04
< Meta:Babel | Archives
Latest comment: 6 years ago by MarcoAurelio in topic RemexHTML replacing Tidy
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in April 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Seeking clarification re meta NPOV
Can someone with a meta perspective and knowledge of the history of meta NPOV kindly respond to my q posted here? tia, Humanengr (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- At a meta level, all of the content on Wikimedia sites should be written from a neutral point of view. There's some debate whether that applies to the Foundation taking political action, with some arguing that it violates NPOV if we as an organization take a side, while others argue that we need to ensure our own survival. As to why only specific projects are listed on the page, it's only projects with a formal NPOV policy. Not all have/need one. (And the page is somewhat confusing in that it says Wikibooks etc as if all language versions have the same policy, and some don't). – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thx. What’s also confusing is that for those projects that “have a strict NPOV policy”, does that mean they essentially adhere to the ‘original formulation’? Any insight would help. Humanengr (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure, and it's not really important to break down the wording here. The NPOV page isn't a policy page. If it isn't clear, you can edit it to make it more clear. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thx. What’s also confusing is that for those projects that “have a strict NPOV policy”, does that mean they essentially adhere to the ‘original formulation’? Any insight would help. Humanengr (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
AbuseFilter False Positive
Not exactly sure where else to place this on Meta, but for some reason, I got hit by an AbuseFilter for placing this warning on an anon's talk page. Seems kind of odd. OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @OhKayeSierra: don't worry about it. For note, it wasn't for placing the warning, it was for you attempting to "remove it" when you were trying to correct it. — xaosflux Talk 13:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
RemexHTML replacing Tidy
RemexHTML will probably be enabled on Meta 2 May. mw:RemexHtml is a parsing library. It replaces Tidy. You can read more, but if this doesn't say you anything at all, you can probably ignore this. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Johan (WMF). According to Special:LintErrors we have ~500,000 high priority errors. While it is certainly not okay on our part, can't we just wait until we have them fixed in order not to break a so high number of pages? @all: if somebody knows how to handle this stuff and could lend a hand (ie: a bot, a script, etc.) it'd be appreciated. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ping User:SSastry (WMF). /Johan (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I responded on the phab task. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MarcoAurelio: BR filed at Meta:Requests for bot status/Fluxbot 3. — xaosflux Talk 23:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Approved on my side, unless people object. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This is now done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)