Meta:Proposed page moves/Archives/2015

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees -> History of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

위키미디어 대한민국/en -> 위키미디어 대한민국

The following discussion is closed: Moved.

the contents which was in 위키미디어 대한민국 originally was move to 위키미디어 대한민국/ko. Please, move 위키미디어 대한민국/en to 위키미디어 대한민국. --Mineralsab (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Matiia (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Moved. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best placed on RFC rather than on the Meta namespace. The discussion might be of historical interest so it's best kept but moved somewhere else IMHO. —MarcoAurelio 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Can not be moved, raising at RFD. —MarcoAurelio 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This unused PNG claims to be actually a DIA file. Based on File:WikiMedia-Servers-IP.dia I guess that this is some kind of compressed XML, 7-zip can unpack it, and a text editor can "render" the result. And Meta allows file extension .dia, so maybe the bogus PNG should be a good DIA… and deleted if the content turns out to be too far on the Category:Looks useless side. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Also see the (new) File talk:TieredDR.png page. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Mys_721tx stated on the talk page that MediaWiki doesn't allow to fix this, so maybe adding {{tracked|TBD}} would do, if somebody finds the number for BD. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Tried to move it and got "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The new file extension does not match its type.". Since it's not possible to move and there are concerns on the file itself, I think this is best handled at WM:RFD. —MarcoAurelio 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Meta:Captcha help to Help:Captcha

The following discussion is closed: Moved. -Mh7kJ (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the Help namespace would be better. —MarcoAurelio 10:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  Support--Syum90 (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Meta:Documentating project ideas, proposals, and reports on meta to Documentating project ideas, proposals, and reports on meta

The following discussion is closed: No consensus. Matiia (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm doubtful on this one but essays on this project have always been placed on the main namespace. That said, I'm not so sure about this one. —MarcoAurelio 13:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  Comment As you say I'm in doubt on this proposition.--Syum90 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  Comment I just wanted to note that I have no complaints about either location. Whatever you folks think is appropriate is fine with me. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Meta:Help:Unified login/hr to Help:Unified login/hr (already exists) [history merge?]

The following discussion is closed: Done. Matiia (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Move and merge #1 with #2? —MarcoAurelio 13:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this possible? I deleted User:Matiia/Sandbox/es and wasn't able to undelete it. I also tried to move User:Matiia/Sandbox2 to User:Matiia/Sandbox/es, but neither It's possible, the translate extension didn't let me. Matiia (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Matiia: se puede hacer eliminando la página de traducción momentáneamente, como aquí; como puedes ver he restaurado tu sandbox sin problemas.--Syum90 (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Me refiero a retirar la página de traducción, hacer que no sea traducible, no a eliminarla. Saludos.--Syum90 (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Grants:PEG/sr-ec to Grants:PEG/sr

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Matiia.--Syum90 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please move to Grants:PEG/sr with all translations (see this search result). Reason: incorrect langcode. Grants:PEG/sr may be delted before, by use Special:PageTranslationDeletePage (my edits only).--Kaganer (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Page deleted, you can now move.--Syum90 (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately no. I now do not have permission to use PageMoving for translatable pages. Only sysops can do it. --Kaganer (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kaganer: I'm unable to move the page, how have I do it?--Syum90 (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hm. Maybe I really have forgotten the correct way :( --Kaganer (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No-no, that is too fast. I could not move the actual pages of translations from the space "Translations:". This is impossible after the original page is removed ... --Kaganer (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This is easier. Please delete Grants:PEG/sr-ec (del) and Grants:PEG/sr-el (del) as pages with bad langcode and without useful translated content. And please delete Grants:PEG/sr (del) as page without useful translated content. I'm sorry for this mess :( --Kaganer (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Small Wiki Monitoring Team/zh-hans to Small Wiki Monitoring Team/zh

The following discussion is closed: Done.--Syum90 (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please move to Small Wiki Monitoring Team/zh with all translations (see this search result). Reason: incorrect langcode. Small Wiki Monitoring Team/zh may be delted before, by use Special:PageTranslationDeletePage (identical with Small Wiki Monitoring Team/zh-hans)--Kaganer (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kaganer: We are in the same case as above, what's your proposal?--Syum90 (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No, there needs to another way. As I means, algoritm should be:
  1. delete target page Small Wiki Monitoring Team/zh (del) -- there is no their own translated content
  2. move all translations (from ns "Translations:") from /zh-hans to /zh (see this search result), without keeping redirects
  3. unlink Small Wiki Monitoring Team in Special:PageTranslation
  4. move source page Small Wiki Monitoring Team/zh-hans to Small Wiki Monitoring Team/zh (as standard page), without keeping redirects
  5. Revert last edit in Small Wiki Monitoring Team and mark this for translation
steps 4-5 should be performed after #3 as quickly as possible. --Kaganer (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done--Syum90 (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oversight policySuppression policy

The following discussion is closed: No consensus, but I've redirected "Suppression policy" to "Oversight policy". Matiia (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The oversight extension has been disabled and the feature is now called "suppression" in core. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 11:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Even though I think this is true, I doubt people will stop referring to it as "Oversight policy", the same way as many people still refer to admins as "sysop", despite this being nonsense actually. --Vogone (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Well the group is still called "sysop" so it's not a slang or stuff in this case. As to the OS perhaps it makes sense, though I feel bad when I think in how many places (and translations) it must be changed if we do change everywhere Oversight to Suppression. So I'm beetween   Neutral and   Weak support (oh well it looks I use the template the second time in 2 years and it still does not exist. Guess I'd need to import it somewhen) --Base (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually that's just a technical relict. There is a motion to change this. --Vogone (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Relict it could be, but actually in this case, unlike not-so-widely-used-oversight (I bet half community members in global scope haven't heard about OSes, or at least that stands true for Ukrainian community members except for those who also edit ruwiki which has few local ones), the possible change really scares me. On the one hand admin is anyways used as an alias/synonym on the other well that's again tons of interface messages/page translation units to be changed, retranslated… Lots of work just to make things a tiny bit better. (Just like WMF redrawing interfaces and making buttons colourful instead of spending resources (both financial and just manpower-wise) on fixing actual bugs. Only that in this case I and my time happen to be among the resources as I would end up among those who update the translations) --Base (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: The extension has been renamed, but the group tied to this policy - oversighters - and all of the support content across the wikis have not. They are unlikely to be renamed given how many places the term is used. I'm also not sure that renaming that group to "suppressors" or similar is a good idea. I recognize it is a technically accurate description of what happens, but the word suppression has more negative associations than oversight (there are not - for example - weapons associated with the word oversight). Similarly, the local pages are worded along the lines of "Requests for oversight" and not "Requests for suppression". Making this specific page move, while logical in the sense of corresponding to the extension, does not fit any of the pages across many wikis which have been built around this policy. My concern is that this would cause confusion or require a lot more changes across dozens of wikis. Realistically, the number of people aware of the extension's name are far fewer than the number of people aware of the current terminology. For those reasons, I suggest leaving the name of the policy and page as it is now. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose based solely on the wording. As @Varnent says above, the word “suppression” has some connotation problems. Having page names like “Suppression policy” and “Requests for suppression” could make the project sound like an oppressive dictatorship. Also, users are familiar with the old name, and I don’t think this change would make it more easily understood by those who are not. — 18:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment: WMF policies such as Access to nonpublic information policy already use "suppression tool" and "suppression policy". The group "oversighter" is being renamed in core -see that there's a new "suppressor" usergroup that will eventually replace the "oversighter" one-. —MarcoAurelio 12:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose - we have oversighters, not suppressioners, so the policy should have the same name. Also, for me suppression is a right to suppress creating redirects while renaming :) --Ochilov (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The problem with the word suppression is that it needs a disambiguation page; the word has connotations that were probably not considered when the tools were changed. There is no reason that multiple terms for the same function cannot coexist (e.g. sysop, admin, etc.), but it is too soon to change the name of this policy. Etamni | ✉  15:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin_activity_review/tg-cyrl to Admin_activity_review/tg

The following discussion is closed: Done. Matiia (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Reason: "tg-cyrl" is redundant and unused commonly. Translation units are moved.--Kaganer (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Help:Contents/no to Help:Contents/nb

The following discussion is closed: Done. Matiia (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Reason - "no" is incorrect (obsolete, unused) langcode. --Kaganer (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

IIRC there was two codes: nb and nn. Are they now unified? —MarcoAurelio 23:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Once "nb" is the primary (default) alias for the migration from "no", then I fixed this request. --Kaganer (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
MarcoAurelio, re your question: yes, a translation page can only be moved together with its translatable page or by removing the page from translation. Definitely you can't (automatically) move translations to a different language code with Translate interface. Nemo 15:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk to Be respectful

The following discussion is closed: I don't see enough consensus to move it. Matiia (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I request that this page be renamed (and rewritten as needed) to Be respectful. Primarily, I propose this title because that’s the message the page is trying to send, albeit in a somewhat disrespectful way. That’s another reason for this move: that the current (and previous) title, though arguably humorous, is disrespectful. Some may object to this move as being too “politically correct” and trying too hard to avoid offending anyone; while that’s not my goal, to them I would ask why we need to use a direct insult (and why we need to fight over which insult to use), and why a “don’t do bad” directive is preferable to “do good.”

Note: I’m not that familiar with Meta, and I don’t know the protocol for requesting a move. If I’ve done anything wrong or missed doing anything, please point it out or do it on my behalf. Thanks. — 01:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • It has been over a week with no objections, so this could be implemented if we follow the rule above. However, I would like to wait at least 48 hours (possibly more) from now before closing this request, given the controversy in the past. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think this page is closely watched. I still tend to favor the name "Don't be a dick" as a page title. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I also support Don't be a dick over Don't be a jerk; if the consensus favors tongue-in-cheek rudeness, I say we move it back to its original title (would that have to be a separate proposal?). But if we want it to be taken more seriously, we ought to stop obliquely encouraging people to call each other names. After all, the page itself says that telling someone “don’t be a dick/jerk” is a dick/jerk move. — 00:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Fellas, this has been discussed time and time again and even argued under page moves loads of times before, and there was no consensus to move the page to a vulgar title. Please stop flogging the dead horse. It is obnoxious.
      Personally, I have no problem with the page staying at "Don't be a jerk", but if it is between "Be respectful" and a vulgar title, move it to "Be respectful." Ideally, keeping it at "Don't be a jerk" would be best, though, I feel. Tharthan (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
      @Tharthan: As far as I’m aware, there was no consensus to move it away from the original title, either, so that’s a faulty argument. And I ask again, why do we need to use any kind of insult at all? Why do we need a WP:BEANS title here? — 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
      Just for comparative purposes, Wikipedia had this issue with the page "honour". Originally, the page had been at "honor", but someone later changed the page to be at "honour". After the page had been at "honour" for a good while, someone brought up moving it back to the original title, with the reasoning "that was the original title". But it was decided that after having been at "honour" for the time it had, it would be pedantic and arbitrary to move it then.
      However, again, I have no problem with moving it to "Be respecful" either. However, the complaint that the essay would become largely meaningless if such were done is not untrue, hence why I suggest that it ought to be kept at its current title. Tharthan (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      I’m not sure what you mean about its becoming meaningless. If you mean we’d end up with an essay titled “Be respectful” discussing jerks and how not to be one, that’s why my proposal included rewriting as necessary. Otherwise, please elaborate. Thanks. (Also, I don’t think your comparison is valid, but I don’t want to further distract from the question at hand.) — 14:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave it as is. 19:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
off-topic thread
  • I oppose this 1000th attempt to do some nonsense with the page. --MF-W 13:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @MF-Warburg: Could you please elaborate on your argument? Part of my intent here is to make the page less nonsensical. — 21:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I was referring to the previous discussions about the page name, which already all only produced needless walls of text. --MF-W 22:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @MF-Warburg: If there were previous discussions of alternative names (other than “Don’t be a ____”), could you please point them out? Otherwise, I ask that you either give your rationale for supporting or opposing this move, or strike your vote. — 22:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
          • I think that he is saying that he is tired of people arguing over the name of the page. Tharthan (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Since MF-W hasn’t responded or commented on this move in particular, and since there don’t appear to have been other discussions on alternative titles to “Don’t be a _____” (please do correct me if I’m wrong), I’m taking the liberty of collapsing this thread as off-topic. — 06:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Please search for previous discussions by yourself. They can easily be found. Tharthan is exactly right, I am fed up with these discussions and therefore think that for the time being, no further changes should be done. --MF-W 12:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • You oppose discussion (and have indirectly cited past discussions) of which insult to use in an insulting title, such as in a rejected 2006 proposal on this page. That’s understandable, but as I’ve said before, this proposal is not about using an insulting title. As such, this thread is off-topic (as are certain comments by myself and others). If you have thoughts on this particular move, or why we shouldn’t be considering an insult-free title at all, please start a new thread below. — 23:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: If the move is made, I’d like to see the page unlocked for editing so that we can rewrite the content to better fit the new title. — 15:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MF-W. The past discussions may have focused on dont's and not dos but they still make it abundantly clear that the encyclopedia is worse than it could be given the hundreds of collective hours devoted to such bickering. Connor Behan (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the nominator that it seems better to tell people what they should do rather than what they shouldn't do. Moreover, "Be respectful" is (at least to me) a clearer and more direct message than "Don't be a dick" or "Don't be a jerk". Mr. Granger (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title Don't be a jerk is a blend of humor and seriousness. Readers will not feel humiliated by this title. After all, this is an essay, not a policy. I don't see the point moving this page again. --Good afternoon (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I think this the first “oppose” vote that’s opposing the actual title, rather than opposing the fact that we’re having a conversation about it. Some good points here, and if the “blend of humor and seriousness” is what we want the essay to be (even if the humor detracts from the seriousness), I have no objections. — 04:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Meta is a multilingual community. While a native speaker of English might understand all the meanings of the word "jerk", it might not be the same for the other users. For example, "jerk" in my language is very offensive. I don't think we should insult our users and indeed "Be respectfull" allows more accurate translations and provides better understanding to all users of what the page is for IMHO. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 11:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Well, though in general I'd agree with MarcoAurelio as I value translatability dearly, but essays are very hard to translate anyway. In that type of texts translators are to choose between either literal word-to-word translation (I usually prefer this type) but then the resulting text may be badly readable having phrases and stuff not used in the target language, and more literature like translation where they'd need to adapt the text. Like in Russian translation of the essay's title there's мудак (a mildly offensive but not a vulgar word) from back the time when the English version used dick, though Russian for dick would be хуй which is a very rude word and besides does not represent the original meaning well (well though хуйло could come to think of it). And yeah the text has some humour in it, so I believe we could allow it to be less civilised than we usually strive to have our texts as. It's not a policy/guidelines/documentation or other "compulsory" reading so those who do not like it, find it offensive, etcetera, could just skip it. But I do not really care about this page or its title, thus weakness of my vote. --Base (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

2008 Privacy policy translations

There are a few translations of the 2008 privacy policy that are not subpages of Privacy policy. The majority of translations are titled 'Privacy policy/2008/<langcode>', however some are not. e.g. Politique de confidentialité

As they are now not the official version of the privacy policy, it is misleading that they are not archived under Privacy policy/2008/ and the titles updated to redirect to the new version.

special:prefixindex/Privacy policy/2008/ should contain real pages; instead there are many redirects.

Some of these 2008 redirects are also pointing to the new Privacy policy, which adds to the confusion. e.g. Privacy policy/2008/De. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)