Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Comparison

New version edit

@Pols12, Minorax, The wub, DerHexer, LD, and JJMC89: hi all, thank you for helping out in improving the format of this page. We want to let you know that I've uploaded a new version of the page based on the newly released Enforcement Guidelines, but I have not marked the tables for translation. Since this work would involve a lot of color code templates (as it was the case last time), we would like to ask your advice(s) on the best and most efficient way to do it --- the previous attempt to put the color code templates within translation units seem to be potentially messy for this second time around. Much appreciated! Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Suggest using css for paragraph content and headers can be transcluded from elsewhere, such as Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Comparison/Template. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don’t understand what/why you want to transclude from another page. Pols12 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
The properest way would be to use <ins> and <del> formatted with TemplateStyles CSS. However, that lets only 2 colors. We can use an additional class (<ins class="new">), but this is a bit longer.
Is the current version the final one? If so, we can work on it: many units can/should probably be restored from previous version to facilitate the translation. But I don’t want to do useless work, if that is not the final version. -- Pols12 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this is the final version that will be up for the second ratification vote. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Done I have finished to mark the page. I have restored some units, however, unfortunately, since the page has been marked while the units were removed, they are not displayed as “outdated”. Translators should take care to review all already “done” translations since important updates are needed. The Translate interface still show the differences, yet. -- Pols12 (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Pols12: wonderful, thank you very much for working on this! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Pols12: hi, when you have time can you please check why some of the {{P}}, {{Y}} and {{G}} templates are showing up red in the translated versions? Thanks! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I wrongly used Tvar inside a unit which I re-used with Tunit, whereas it is impossible. I have removed the tvar’s and updated the translations. However, I have validated translations which need a review, and I can’t mark them as “obsolete” for the same reason. I hope readers/translators will notice any issue in those unit and fix them. -- Pols12 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

comparison makes evident an editing slip edit

In the comparison at least, under principle 3.1, some revised text is stated to be:

Resources for translation must be provided by the Wikimedia Foundation when reports are provided in languages that designated individuals are not proficient. [emphasis added]

Perhaps "in which designated individuals are not proficient" would read better. --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Doncram; the current wording snagged on my ear too. Redwidgeon (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I saw the same thing and noticed the main page already has the correct wording, so I went ahead and updated the comparison to match. Somethingintheshadows (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Doncram, Redwidgeon, and Somethingintheshadows: hi folks, thanks for your comments. The wording is currently what was approved by the Revisions Committee to undergo community ratification. I would suggest you to submit this particular feedback for the text on SecurePoll while voting. I've reverted the change done by Somethingintheshadows based on this reasoning. Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Thanks! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
My only concern is that the most esteemed Drafting Committee may not have the language doesn't read right. DAVilla (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
The revision suggested by Doncram is both good and necessary.

the most esteemed Drafting Committee may not have the language doesn't read right

That usage confuses. —catsmoke talk 03:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Typo? edit

"...the UCoC should be enforced at the relevant most local level possible." Perhaps "most relevant" would sound better? Heavy Water (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Heavy Water: good catch, now fixed. Thank you very much! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
No problem! Heavy Water (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Missing hyphen edit

The hyphen between "long" and "term" in "long-term harassment" is missing. It's understandable without the hyphen, but would be more precise with it. --Dave Andrew (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Text and comparison differ edit

Section 2.2 Recommendations for UCoC training, second sentence:

Comparison (new text side) says:

It is recommended that relevant stakeholders be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: …

Text says:

It is recommended that relevant stakeholders should be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: …

I highlighted the word that was lost on the comparison page. --Helmut w.k. (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Helmut w.k.: yes, good catch. Fixed on the table. Thank you! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Meta? edit

At the end of the UCoC (revised) it states


"Wikimedia Foundation Office Action Policy

The policy found on Meta or its equivalent successor policy."


Is this refering to Meta (formerly Facebook) and if so, why? Or to something else, I hope? WordwizardW (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@WordwizardW: no, it's referring to Meta-wiki, this wiki. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Missing marks edit

When reading through the text on the comparison page (with a view on "what has changed", I noticed several instances where the left and right (old and new) text differs, but there was no "revised", "new addition", or "revised" mark there. Is there a rationale to that, or is it a slip (changing text without marking the change)? Helmut w.k. (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Return to "Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Comparison" page.