Meta:Babel/Archives/2019-09

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in September 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Requested pages?

Is there a list of pages that Meta probably should have, but doesn't? If not, should there be such a list? There are a lot of significant Wikimedia topics that don't seem to have any documentation. --Yair rand (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that Special:WantedPages provides some indication. --bdijkstra (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Does it? I went through the first 200 results and didn't see anything worth creating a page about. Killiondude (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, meta doesn't really need any new pages. It's a central coordinating wiki that's half people asking stewards for stuff with the rest about an even mix of WMF stuff and local affiliate stuff. None of the steward stuff needs expanded, and the WMF/affiliates are perfectly capable of creating their own pages. I don't really think essays and broad discussions about the Wikimedia movement serve much purpose here: most Wikimedians, including extremely active ones, don't visit meta. These pages are better on local projects that they impact rather than on a place most people won't read. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Reformation of Babel

English for Google Translate: Our Babel is very old-fashioned compared to Uncyclopedia. I propose a renovation already! I could even help but I do not know the Wikipedia-Babel source code. If anyone knows, let me know.
Português por eu mesmo: Nossa Babel está muito antiquada em comparação com a da Desciclopédia. Proponho uma reforma já! Até poderia ajudar mas não sei o código-fonte da Babel da Desciclopédia. Se alguém souber me avise por favor.
IPad365 (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

What is "our babel"? Your link is broken. Stryn (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia babel. IPad365 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you link to it? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

~~ IPad365 (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

So compared to what? Both the links you're comparing are the same, that's Wikipedia portal: https://www.wikipedia.org. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, so see my comment up there, I meant Uncyclopedia instead of Wikipedia. I want to change the source code. IPad365 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not true. It was www.wikipedia.org link first before you later changed it. When next you want refactor you comment you should use <s>...</s> tags to strike the old comment. Don't just overwrite what people replied on. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fine. Who is the only person who has the power to edit here? IPad365 (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't know what you're talking about. What exactly are you saying needs to be changed? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started

Hello,

In a recent statement, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees requested that staff hold a consultation to "re-evaluat[e] or add community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans)".

Accordingly, the Foundation's Trust & Safety team invites all Wikimedians to join this consultation and give their feedback from 30 September to 30 October.

How can you help?

Suggest how partial and temporary Foundation bans should be used, if they should (eg: On all projects, or only on a subset);

Give ideas about how partial and temporary Foundation bans should ideally implemented, if they should be; and/or

Propose changes to the existing Office Actions policy on partial and temporary bans.

We offer our thanks in advance for your contributions, and we hope to get as much input as possible from community members during this consultation!

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection of certain pages related to WMF and policies

I wonder if pages like Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (that is, ones that cover the various bodies of the Foundation and policies) shouldn't be semi-protected. While there isn't exactly a huge number of vandalisms on them, I'm also not sure if allowing non-autoconfirmed users to edit them has any real value. We certainly cannot expect such users to expand the content in these pages and the nature of the pages means that usually there's little to have fixed on them either, not to mention how this also may affect the translations. Checking the history, I think I see only vandalisms by non-autoconfirmed, which just waste patroller resources and dirty the history. But it also isn't that I'm insisting on semi-protection, just sharing my thoughts about the idea.
— Luchesar • T/C 10:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

So, most WMF staff accounts aren't autoconfirmed, and having at least the possibility of them being able to helpfully contribute is important. I know they currently tend not to so, but I think we should try to leave the option open. --Yair rand (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense, indeed. I guess they could also all be confirmed manually, but obviously if there isn't a pressure (i.e. persistent vandalism on these pages or lack of patrollers), it isn't worth the effort. Thank you for the explanation, Yair rand!
— Luchesar • T/C 17:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

An option would be for members of WMF Office IT to add any newly-created staff accounts to confirmed group after creation. Or automate the process either in the software or with a bot. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ugg please don't that will just pollute the group - especially since we only have it otherwise maintainable by 'crats. (Perhaps if we let admins deal with it). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to go in a different direction, and to start labeling which pages the Wikimedia community is and is not allowed to edit on Meta. Right now there is ambiguity. I feel that if there is a page on Meta-Wiki, then that page should be in wiki-voice presenting the wiki-view, and anyone should be allowed to edit it and discuss on the talk page. In general, the WMF has one perspective because that is what organizations by nature present, and the Wikimedia community presents diverse perspectives because by nature that is what a community like ours does. I sense a growing conflict of interest as the WMF seeks to both control what text is on Meta-Wiki pages and assert that this text is the view of the Wikimedia community here.

To address this tension I propose to post {{community}} on pages where the Wikimedia community would like to edit, but where there is also ambiguity about who is allowed to edit.

The Wikimedia Community maintains this page to present the Wikimedia Community perspective.

Other steps that I propose are the creation of a category, something like Category:WMF maintained or Category:Priority WMF, which instead of a hard protection on the page would set the boundary that community members can make minor fixes but the text is here in Meta to present the WMF view. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is a great example - there is a way that the WMF presents the community engagement process around this organization, and the Wikimedia community presents another view. We should not immediately double all of these things, but in some cases, WMF staff will prevent or revert wiki community changes to certain Meta pages. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: There are no pages on Meta that the community is not allowed to edit. All pages here are community-run. No exceptions. Meta-Wiki is defined as Wikimedia's "global community site". Symbolic of this, we use the Wikimedia Community Logo, which is the one logo that the WMF doesn't have a trademark on.

There is a Category:Maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, which specifically states that "Inclusion in this category is NOT meant to imply that others cannot also participate in maintaining the content." and "The category is primarily for tracking purposes, and not meant to imply ownership of the content." The WMF staffers involved are very clear about this point. --Yair rand (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I presented this discussion at Talk:Office_actions#Concept_of_WMF_prohibition_on_page_editing, where there is some belief that only the Wikimedia Foundation should present its views on that policy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The "Wikimedia Community perspective" is subjective. Those pages serve to document and explain to readers the subject of those pages, not to provide an opinion on it. By no means should it be the "Wikimedia Community perspective". There isn't any other neutral view of office bans, for example, except that which explains how office bans work, plainly, like it currently is. Best, Vermont (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Import request

Copy from d#Auto-updating_WiR_table

I'm in the process of writing some templates to be able to make the Wikipedian_in_Residence table easier to maintain using wikidata. In order to implement w:Template:WiR_table_row here, could I request the import of:

Let me know if you think there are better locations for it to be hosted than on outreachwiki.

Thank you! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done @Evolution and evolvability: Meta users are unable to assist with outreachwiki imports. Please talk to their admins. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Ah, thanks. I thought there was more overlap. I'll talkpage message a few people on that list. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Updated request to import to meta: Outreachwiki had lower activity than I thought. Per this discussion, it might be better to implement the table on meta at Wikipedian in Residence. Therefore could I update my import requests to be to this wiki:

Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

To do this we need (per phab:T171140 IIRC) Wikidata to support linking to outreachwiki, and outreachwiki supports query datas from Wikidata, Otherwise nothing can work here. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Do you know when outreachwiki will get it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: what are you trying to do and can I help? --mikeu ^talk 00:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeu, Liuxinyu970226, and Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Originally I'd intended to get this table working in outreachwiki, but it's been suggested that it'd actually be more sustainable to move the table over to meta instead (discussion). It would therefore be good to import into meta the w:module:WikidataIB/sandbox and the templates listed above if that is possible. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I can import at outreach if that would be useful. I don't have permissions to do this on meta. --mikeu ^talk 05:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mu301: That'd be great if possible! If you can import to outreachwiki, I'll also see if I can get someone to import to meta so that the content can be at either. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 07:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Would you be be happy to import those pages to meta (above)? Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 07:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Imported two templates and corresponding documentation pages. Importing the module especially from a sandbox without further comparison of versions hasn't been done; I always seek the opinion of @RexxS: about versions of their module, and which we should be importing. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: maybe see how the local version of module:WikidataIB works first and then we can work on what RexxS advises. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: For the test to work, the features at w:module:WikidataIB/sandbox may be required. Should the sandbox subpage be implemented into the module at wikipedia before importing here? (@RexxS: let me know if I've misunderstood anything). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 07:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: That is a pretty widespread module, and I see a multi-branched version as being problematic. I will await RexxS the author to tell me when there is a stable version to import. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The above comment is an important point. I haven't looked at this example but many templates have such numerous dependencies that importing can be messy. I'd agree with the wait for a stable branch, and I'd also get a second opinion on outreach. --mikeu ^talk 15:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to maintain both en:Module:WikidataIB and its sandbox and c:Module:WikidataIB and its sandbox as identical up-to-date modules. They are pretty much always backward compatible, so folks on other language wikis just import one of those to update their version. The module does have several dependencies because it makes use of Jarekt's c:Module:Complex date to render dates in all different languages, but the dependencies are listed at the top of the module code (in case the documentation doesn't get imported). If you're ever unsure, just ping me and I'll do the importing manually - there's very little problem with copy and paste, because the edit history of each module is uncomplicated for purposes of attribution. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Lsandre: The w:module:WikidataIB has now been updated so that it should now work with the WiR table templates (per this comment). Would you be able to do the final re-import the module? Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Lsandre: Apologies for pestering. Would it be possible to import the current version version of w:module:WikidataIB (was updated two days after the last import with the relevant feature that I need). Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Done for future simple import requests please use Meta:RfH — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)