User talk:GVarnum-WMF/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for engaging at Wikimedia Conference 2016 Learning Days!
.svg){kind=icon}
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, we are pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee and Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson elections. Please read the letter from the Wikimedia Foundation calling for candidates at on the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation elections portal.
Funds Dissemination Committee
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.
Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson
The Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.
The candidacy submission phase will last until May 28 (23:59 UTC).
We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates until May 28. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki. Once the questions submission period has ended on May 28, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to.
The goal of this process is to fill the five community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee and the community-selected ombudsperson. The election results will be used by the Board itself to make the appointments.
The full schedule for the FDC elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
- May 15 (00:00 UTC) – May 28 (23:59 UTC) – Nominations
- May 15 – May 28 – Candidates questions submission period
- May 29 – June 2 – Candidates answer questions
- June 3 – June 11 – Voting period
- June 12–14 – Vote checking
- June 15 – Goal date for announcing election results
More information on this year's elections can be found at the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation elections portal.
Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections
wikimedia.org.
On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
20:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- This message never made it there because that page shouldn't be targeted by Mass Messages. The alternative is posting manually, as that's not a single page Village Pump. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting - I'll look into it - thanks for the heads up. The change was recommended by one of the Italian Wikimedians. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Who is right, you should post at the Bar if you want at least a small fraction of the user base to really notice you, but messages in English always go to the Embassy and so you're only left with manual posting (which BTW also happens elsewhere. I think it's on da.wp where I go and post manually - although at least there delivery doesn't fail, but I bargained that with having stuff translated when I need it, so I'm fine). But you aren't worried about not so many people reading VP messages, so there's that ;) (thanks again for coming to that meeting). --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- This message had an Italian version - so was not primarily English. But I've changed it back. And it is not that I am not worried about people reading the messages, I am not worried about them responding on the VPs themselves and looking at view rates disagree they are not being read - I think I didn't clearly convey that point. ;) --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Elitre (WMF): Example of how that message looks on Italian wikis that it was delivered to. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Who is right, you should post at the Bar if you want at least a small fraction of the user base to really notice you, but messages in English always go to the Embassy and so you're only left with manual posting (which BTW also happens elsewhere. I think it's on da.wp where I go and post manually - although at least there delivery doesn't fail, but I bargained that with having stuff translated when I need it, so I'm fine). But you aren't worried about not so many people reading VP messages, so there's that ;) (thanks again for coming to that meeting). --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting - I'll look into it - thanks for the heads up. The change was recommended by one of the Italian Wikimedians. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
We could have saved him, and decided not to. Fuck this shit. odder (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi! This page was prepared for migration, but not marked for translation by one important reason: if you invalidate many translations by "designed" reasons, that is your responsibility for migrationg old translations through Special:PageMigration. Translators should not do this. We should be save time and effort of translators. I did not have the time and energy to do this, but you probably have them. Then let's go! --Kaganer (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong
This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.
Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.
The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.
If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help
Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process
Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.
The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.
This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.
The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.
Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:
- Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (15 December 2016)
- Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
- Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (23 December 2016)
- Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
- Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (8 January 2017)
- Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
- Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (11 January 2017)
- Introduction of williamsworks
- Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 February 2017)
- The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
- Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (10 February 2017)
- Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks
More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help
Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process
Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.
The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.
This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.
The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.
Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:
- Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (15 December 2016)
- Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
- Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (23 December 2016)
- Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
- Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (8 January 2017)
- Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
- Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (11 January 2017)
- Introduction of williamsworks
- Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 February 2017)
- The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
- Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (10 February 2017)
- Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks
More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help
Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process
Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.
As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.
Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:
- Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (16 February 2017)
- Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
- Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (24 February 2017)
- Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
- Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 March 2017)
- Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions
More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 18:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help
Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.
The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.
The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).
We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.
Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.
The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.
The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
- April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
- April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
- April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
- May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
- May 15–19 – Board vote checking
- May 20 – Board result announcement goal
In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:
- Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
- There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
- Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
- One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.
More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections wikimedia.org.
On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
enWiki Non Discrimination policy
Hey Greg, I'm a sysop over at enWiki, and recently came upon our local version of the WMF Non discrimination policy. Since it was last updated, the WMF version was changed by Jrogers to be more expansive. I thought about copying the new text into the enWiki page, but wanted to check with you two first; the current version refers to "staff or contractors" rather than "users and employees," so it seemed less relevant to a local project. At any rate, seems striaghtforward but figured I should run it by you all before making the change. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- That page just lists the information presented in the global policy. It should probably just be soft redirected to the global policy page, as is done with other global policies that don't require local expansion or clarification. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's reasonable, doesn't really apply to local wikis anymore I suppose. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Amorymeltzer: Essentially, the policy never had any enforcement over local projects and was always meant to be a policy specific to the Wikimedia Foundation's conduct as an organization. The update in part tried to clarify that and remove wording that caused confusion over its actual purpose and scope. I hope that helps over some clarity on possible next steps. Personally, I think a soft redirect makes sense. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's reasonable, doesn't really apply to local wikis anymore I suppose. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Meeting in Berlin
Hi! Meeting in Berlin was held or planned? My colleague is ready to participate… --Kaganer (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikimedia ZA details
Hi Greg, I was going over the details displayed on the Wikimedia Foundation's website for Wikimedia South Africa and I have noticed a couple of inaccuracies. I would like to know if you could please correct them for me? The first one is that Wikimedia ZA's website url is incorrect. The correct url is http://wikimedia.org.za/. The telephone number is also out of date. Could you please change it to "+27 79 515 8727", we will use this number in the interim until we have a new more permanent number setup. Thanks, Douglas.Discott (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail
 | Hello, GVarnum-WMF. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. |
Comcom: Page with minor typo
Hello, would you mind checking my recent edit where I have added a missing closing tag? I came upon that while translating the page, and wish it will be pushed to update translated versions. Please excuse me or I might have nudged you out of your tasks. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Omotecho: Apologies for not replying sooner. Thank you for this fix! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Enwiki DOJ IP block
Hello Gregory. I have blocked 149.101.1.114 for 72 hours for vandalism on Enwiki. Their contributions display a notice asking me to notify the Communications Committee if a block is placed, and you are listed as the primary contact. Ferret (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail
Hello Gregory, I've referred an OTRS ticket (ticket:2020010710005979) to ComCom. If the mailing list doesn't pass this through please let me know and I'll get it over a different way. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Covid-19 article on meta
Hi GVarnum-WMF/Archive 2 You are obviously the main contributor to COVID-19 (see:https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/meta.wikimedia.org/COVID-19)
Just wondering why you are not participating in the Talkpage discussions. btw thanks for including CORONATION IN Category: COVID-19
Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Ottawahitech: Hello, I have been participating in discussions on topics not related to project content. The Wikimedia Foundation staff does not edit non-meta project content as a part of our roles, and so I have not engaged in project content discussions. Is there a particular issue you were expecting a reply from someone at the Foundation to and have not received one? Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, I am confused: you say that Foundation staff does not edit project content, but the xtools link I included in my message above clearly says that you contributed 83% of the contents of COVID-19 which you yourself created on 2020-03-17? What is the point of creating a dead-end article on Meta and sitting on this very rare piece of online real-estate that you say you are not permitted to participate in? Why can you not participate in public discussions of a page that you contribute to, instead of doing so on your user talkpage?
- Wouldn't you agree that it may appear to some that the wmf is obstructing the community's effort to help in this worldwide crisis?
- btw as you well know I can easily be locked out of all wmf sites for posting this here Ottawahitech (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Ottawahitech: I think you misunderstood. By projects, I meant article content on the primary content projects such as Wikipedia and Wikiversity. Can you clarify what you mean by dead-end? It is linked from the mainpage and many other pages, and links out to dozens of pages. Also, I have no idea what you are talking about regarding potentially being locked out. I also have no idea what you mean by "Wouldn't you agree that it may appear to some that the wmf is obstructing the community's effort to help in this worldwide crisis?" As I said, I have been engaged on that talk page (check its history), and that portal page can be edited by any confirmed user (as you yourself have done). Accusations of obstruction are a rather bad faith approach to a discussion.
- To your original point, I simply did not see your comment on that talk page earlier (things are hectic right now) and thought you were talking about a comment on there about a Wikipedia article - which is why I asked if there was something specific you wanted me to reply to. If you felt that you needed my attention on that page, please consider pinging me on that page directly (I agree this talk page is a bad place), or perhaps linking to the specific thread you are referring to if you ping me here.
- That all said, thank you for your note on the talk page about the date, I have no thoughts about it either way and I think originally got the info from the English Wikipedia article as it existed at that time. The edit you made seems fine to me as it clearly did to others as well. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- btw as you well know I can easily be locked out of all wmf sites for posting this here Ottawahitech (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The article has an "at least" closed date for WMF offices. If there is a new date, would you please consider updating it. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Thank you for this inquiry! I updated the page on Monday after we finalized some things in a morning meeting. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Template:WRC tabs nominated for deletion
Hello. An item which you created or you have editted substantially (Template:WRC tabs) has been nominated for deletion. Please see the ongoing discussion at Meta:Requests for deletion. Thank you. --Pols12 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
New MediaWiki logo protection status
Hi! Please note my question in foundation:Talk:Wikimedia_trademarks#MediaWiki_logo. Kaganer (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
French translation
Dear GVarnum-WMF, is it possible to use inclusive language in French in the official WMF translations ? Using the masculine form is a kind of mass misgendering, and I sincerely think it should be avoided, especially since we have a new code of conduct which mentions the neeed to use the correct form to address people.Nattes à chat (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Nattes à chat: I will pass that along to the French translator that worked on the most recent project and make a note to include it in upcoming translation guide being developed. Thank you for pointing it out! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind reception of the remark. If the translator needs advice on how to apply inclusive language in French we can help him ː) Nattes à chat (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the wmfwiki note!
Looking forward to the SUL implementation; a fine idea. –SJ talk 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ovts2333 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
foundation.wikimedia.org and its /Home page?
Hi, would you kindly scan my message regarding translation on foundation wiki/Home? I guess a very simple template, or tl:lanugages solves the issue, and you are among those who has the magic wand to do the trick. Cheers, -- Omotecho (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Communications/Wiki_Unseen (translation)
Hello, thank you indeed to introruce an initiative to cover unseen people, and I would like to ask for a small favor as you marked this page for translation.
As you see translation segment #13 #28 (correction), the translation original holds several dagger list items, which is rather painful for a translator in double bye language to work with. You might imagine how word count expands/shortens across languages, thus the translation tool makes it hard to match, say, the third dagger between left pane/en and right pane/ja in my case. Maybe it is because I work on FireFox, the fonts don't proportionate how left/right pane contents are shown.
Would you kindly think and split maybe two/three dagger items per a translation segment? That might not look ideal as for readers, but for translators, we tend to have favor for shorter materials as we refer to Termbase or exteral grossary/list of terminology. Soory I have to bother you, but I though it would be worth voicing. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC) link for sample segment correction / Omotecho (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
A request
Hi Gregory,
We have posted an open letter to the Foundation and Board of Trustees. It concerns the development of MediaWiki extensions and needs the personal attention of all concerned developers and managers. Please see it at:
Open_letter_from_English_Wikipedia_New_Page_Reviewers
and
en:Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination/2022_WMF_letter
Your comments are welcome. Many thanks.
Kind regards,
On behalf of the English Wikipedia Community
中文兩種字體翻譯的正確名稱（繁體與簡體）與啟用ISO 693-2代碼 兩種代碼（zho,chi)
主旨：中文繁體與中文簡體兩種字體的文化差異，棄用中文 ISO 639-1 代碼zh，恢復啟用中文 ISO 639-2 zho(繁體字)與chi(簡體字) 。 說明：繁體中文字體的結構是「部首與筆劃」組合成為單一「字體」例如「字」這個單一字體的“部首”是上面的「寶」部首與下方的「子」共同組成的「單字」每一個單一的中文字體（例如：「字」這個字體本身就具備一種語意或者是代表的意思，就等同是英文的「單字」，有許多不同的用法或「同義字」」），繁體中文的相同的單一「字體」就像是英文的每一個「單字」，繁體中文「字體」或者是簡體中文「字體」的本身就等同是「英文單字」。繁體中文字體的「部首與筆劃」就到等同英文的26個「英文字母」組成的「單字」，簡寫字體（在國際上稱為：簡體中文）這個字體的產生是因為“中國人”或者是全世界各地區移民的“華人”在接受基本教育或者在日常生活中習慣用筆抄寫，抄寫筆記的時候需要提升抄寫的速度，就會使用「簡體字」因為繁體中文的每一個「字體」在手寫時有95%的人們時常會因為筆劃太多而寫錯「字」，無論是在繁體［台灣地區官方使用「字體」與日本國家的「片假名詞」沿用部分的中文「字體」］，或是簡體［目前是中國地區官方在法律上唯一制定使用的「字體」］只要是使用中文的「文字」&「字體」在做成正式的考試中的作文、申論題，日常生活中的法律條文、國際締約文書（通常會在締約時會同時使用英文與中文兩種「字體」版本，例如聯合國人權公約，在國際商業聯盟在擬定時由締約國共同協議使用那一種締約文字，例如G20,亞洲地區的國家聯合經濟條約）、民間建構的公文、商業契約條款、遺囑..等，只要是在「文書」有使用到任何的中文「字體」制作成的文書、翻譯字典、網際網路在任何的網站頁面（在這裡都統一稱為文書或者英國牛津中英翻譯字典）只要有其中一個單一的中文「字」編輯的錯誤，就如同在編輯英文頁面內容時“例如：在編輯英文維基百科”任何一個欄目頁面其中的任何一個「英文單字」拼寫錯誤，英文「單字」缺少字母，輸入時英文「字母」拼寫錯誤一般，中文的單一「字」就像是英文的「單字」一樣，筆劃錯誤、部首錯誤、同義字引用錯誤，這種英文「單字」或是中文的單一「字」的錯誤就會造成網站在頁面元素設計以及國際字符代碼（翻譯人員與計算機工程設計者與開發者就算非常擅長編碼，也只是在編碼方面比較擅長，文字的發展都是涉及到每一個不同種族文化的歷史從遠古時期發展至今而來的，沒有任何一個人類能夠完全的理解自己所使用的文字代表的含意，源自於那一種語系，引用的語系「文字」代表的語義）這是目前我所查到在維基媒體公司以及任何的非國家官方網站調查到的一個嚴重錯誤盲區，維基媒體的使命是傳遞正確的「文化與知識」，而不是只侷限在一直擴張已經被人類日常生活中不再使用的古代語言，維基媒體的章程也是不再接受以古代文字的附屬維基百科的申請，唯一的原因就是因為任何的方言、少數語言在書寫時使用的都是現代「文字」，語言這一個單字在西方社會的解釋包含了語言的口頭交流與文字的書寫交流，口頭交流與書寫交流這兩種交流方式從遠古時期到今時為止只有在區域性的日常口頭交談時沒有任何國家法律明文限制必須使用哪一種「口頭語言、方言」，但是在文字的編撰就有國家法律明文規定有統一使用的「文字」，在任何的「文書」中引用錯誤的「文字」在每一個立憲制國家體制的憲法規定，錯誤的「文書、法律、文字」在錯誤的沿用時就不具備法律效應。如以上所言我需要解釋明白為什麼要在中文「字體」的代碼恢復啟用 ISO 639-2 zho(中文繁體），ISO 639-2 chi(中文簡體），因為目前這兩種字體被歸類成同一種「字體」代碼zh，這是嚴重的國際錯誤，zh屬於ISO 693-1 的國際解譯字符代碼，早已在中文字體639-2出現2種「異體字」（簡體字與繁體字）的時候在國際上就是採取兩種「字體」並行存在，在美國的官方網站也不會把兩種「字體」整合為一種，聯合國的官方網站也會把翻譯過後的文字版本表示註明清楚是「中文繁體」或是「簡體中文」而不是像是在 Mata-wikimedia的公告不再把兩種字體分類標示，只採用單一統一字體代碼為中文=zh，反而中國方言有各自的代碼可以翻譯，我站在國際上每一個國家都知道的香港與澳門這兩個地區使用的（粵語）是因為歷史原因，在日常生活中出現了特殊的一種與中國廣東話不同的特殊語種使用的文字也是有很多不存在正式的簡體中文字典與繁體中文字典現有的「字體」與「片語」，所以中文維基百科的方言只有「粵語」而不是「廣東話」，維基媒體這種沒有把中文的繁體字與簡體字版本的翻譯分類標示清楚，是這違反了現有的中國地區國家政權法律規定，中國也是很明確的表示該國只承認一種官方專用的「字體（簡體字）、字體發音（普通話）」現有的政權也不會承認現有的中文（繁體字）是中國的官方唯一「字體」，就如同美國因為歷史原因在現有的國家官方「文字」存在（英文）與（西班牙文）兩種「文字」，現在的Mata-Wiki 網站在中文版本的翻譯內容「文字」就如同是在英文版公告內容當中在編輯時同時混合摻雜了「西班牙」與「英文」兩種的「文字」一樣。我這樣的比喻是非常符合現有的錯誤盲點，中國與台灣在地理位置不屬於同一個大陸，兩個地區的人民從西元1949年至2022年為止已經分離了整整70年以上，在日常生活的對於相同的名詞與生活用語都已經有不同的稱呼，這是實際的文化現實差異，文化已經產生差異之後無論那一個地區的人民都很難更改日常習慣了，這差異會越來越大，習慣也是隨著時間的增長而越難改變，這是正常人類的一種生活慣性行為，年齡越大的人類要更改另一種生活慣性行為，這已經觸及到醫學上的專業名詞稱為「肌肉記憶」「潛意識反應神經」，我希望這個案件能加入維基媒體基金會2022年度的中央樞紐的擬定章程當中，因為「文字」的正確名稱會直接影響語音辨識的開發、網站的維護、編輯戰的爭議、開發部門的代碼整合，整合文字名稱所影響往後的一連串的連鎖效應一直都是圍繞在「正確的文化交流」與「正確的知識傳遞共享」。Jc.Msndy(discussion←°°or use this notification me°°→email) 14:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Terms of use
Hello, it seems that moving the ToU page broke something in the translated pages. If you switch language in the header you always get only the English text and all translations are 0%... --Civvì (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Civvì - apologies for the delayed response and inconvenience. The issue was caused by "upgrading" the translations to a newer system that would allow for easier navigation by readers and inputing of new translations by translators. Unfortunately, this "upgrade" caused them to be unavailable for a few days. My apologies for that inconvenience, but I believe we have completed all of the upgrades to the major policies. Thank you for your patience and for reaching out to let me know! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
MovedToFoundationGovWiki
Hello. Has Special:Diff/24692439 been discussed or announced anywhere? Just asking because it breaks some scripts, but perhaps I shouldn't care. --Krd 07:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I see that the username list was put back, but the actual policy page was moved to the WiFoGoWiki. Are more policy pages going to be moved there? -kyykaarme (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Kyykaarme - as you noticed - the noticeboard will need more work before it can be moved (if it is indeed moved). A vast majority of Foundation policies are already on Foundation Governance Wiki. The very few which are not already there will likely be migrated there - but most of the migration work relates to moving translations and feedback to GovWiki (where the main policies have always resided) now that feedback and translations can be handled on that wiki. The duplication and existence of policies on Meta-Wiki stemmed from when GovWiki had more limits in place and so it could not facilitate translations or feedback. Note, this effort only impacts Foundation policies and does not impact local wiki policies or policies which the Foundation is not the primary caretaker of. Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at notes - I think the only other page planned at this time for migration that isn't already primarily housed on GovWiki (so an actual move of the main page) is the Data retention guidelines page. Everything else being migrated are basically just the translations and feedback as the main pages have always resided on GovWiki and Meta-Wiki was housing duplicates. Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- The duplication of policy pages (and especially of the translations) is a problem, but I think this is the wrong solution. Who's going to go to yet another wiki to translate and discuss? Maybe people will find their way there, but I have doubts. kyykaarme (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay - it has been a busy week. And thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am definitely open to circulating around other ideas - however - keeping what we have today is causing more and larger problems than the one you have mentioned. Plus, in reality right now we are requiring a far larger audience to click across wikis as the traffic to the Terms of Use for example to Meta-Wiki is 4,231 to Foundation Governance Wiki's 16,122 over the same seven days. For the Cookie statement, it is Meta-Wiki with 31 to Foundation Governance Wiki's 2,662 over that same time. Obviously there are exceptions. But taken as a whole, it suggests there are significant sized audiences not finding these policies via Meta-Wiki, and given the typical Meta-Wiki user - many of them are more comfortable jumping between wikis (as Meta-Wiki is itself rarely one's "home wiki" to begin with) than people finding them via the footer links.
- What is today known as Foundation Governance Wiki has always been the "official" home of the English versions, which have for as long as I am aware always been linked from the footer of every project's pages. Moving all of this to one wiki allows us to facilitate easier navigation to translations, decreases chances of accidental errors between duplicates, makes knowing "where to go" to find Foundation policies easier, makes searching just those policies (and related translations) easier (they are all within one searchable and "contained" namespace), and reduces workload monitoring feedback (which increases speed/chances of responses as our resources for monitoring talk pages are obviously insignificant in comparison to the community's ability to produce content for us on them).
- I empathize with concerns over attracting actual translators, but hopefully the sheer volume of traffic to the official locations and ability for anyone with an account to offer additional translations once there will help. For what it is worth, the "gap" between the "official" location of the policies and the translations has come up from some translators as a demotivating factor for them. It is at this stage very difficult to know exactly what impact any given step will have, but the current best available data and thinking suggests this is the most logical next step in our pursuit of the best outcome. That said, we remain open to other ideas if you have any, but unfortunately not doing anything is even less ideal as it is causing confusion and in some instances inconsistencies between duplications. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Gregory. I cannot agree with the statistical argument, that people already visit govwiki if needing copies of a policy. Clearly, most people are accessing the TOU and Cookies Statement from website footers, which link directly there. That is not true of policies not linked in the footer: m:ANPDP is still getting more hits than foundation:Policy:Access to nonpublic personal data policy (1,317 vs 1,077). It's good to see the ANPDP noticeboard has been returned to Meta. The policy page itself needs to return too. Actually, I don't think it needs to return; I understand completely why you desire the policy's original copy to be located on govwiki. The real problem is with the meta page being an empty page, a soft redirect. Resulting from that, the Privacy and global CheckUser policies are now located on Meta, but the ANPD Policy is not, and one has to remember to link some policies on Meta but others on govwiki. What would make life far easier is if the Meta page could simply mirror the govwiki one. (This might need a bespoke technical solution, like a bot to copy over changes.) The ANPDP statistic illustrates this problem too - people are apparently just not finishing the full click-through process. Finally, I'm sorry to say that authority might be an issue here, too: the Meta community is entrusted with keeping a copy of global policies. You are sacking its copies, replacing them with a soft redirect, without having consulted the community (unless I have overlooked something). The remaining plans for migration have not been disclosed, but you have mentioned Everything else being migrated, which I take to be meaning the meta page will be replaced with a soft redirect. Duplication and the transfer of ownership of the "principal" policy would be innocuous. Actual migration really strikes at a fundamental part of what Meta is all about… AGK ■ 12:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @AGK - thank you for your thoughts. A few thoughts and clarifications in response. More information on roadmap for Foundation Governance Wiki is located on at foundation:Wikimedia:Roadmap.
- I have previously looked into variations of the bot idea you mentioned, but to my understanding, it is not yet possible and could be as far off as a few years. If you are aware of a bot solution available already, please do let me know as it could be useful for several things beyond just this.
- There are already thousands of similar soft redirects on Meta-Wiki - in what ways do you see these soft redirects as different from the already existing soft redirect pages?
- Global policies maintained primarily by the community (such as Stewards policy, Global rollback, etc.), as you stated, have and will continue to reside primarily on Meta-Wiki. Policies maintained by the Foundation (Terms of Use, Privacy, etc.) - with a few timing or workflow related exceptions - have and will continue to reside on (what is today known as) Foundation Governance Wiki (previously known as just "Foundation Wiki"). The efforts underway do not change either of those scopes, and this effort is not impacting the global policies maintained by the community which Meta-Wiki's scope speaks to. It is an effort to address problems specific to duplication of Foundation policies and improve facilitating of comments and translations of Foundation policies. The duplication of Foundation policies on Meta-Wiki were only created when the ability of community accounts to engage on what was then Foundation Wiki were changed and became more restrictive such that translations and comments could no longer be provided by all but a few volunteer accounts. Absent that happening, there would not have been a need for the duplicates to be created. Over the past year, we have removed those limitations for volunteer accounts on what is now Foundation Governance Wiki.
- Given the original reason for duplication no longer exists, and these are indeed duplicates and are not community managed policies within the scope of Meta-Wiki - I am not sure the benefit of "one less click" outweighs the growing risks and problems associated with the existing (and from what I can tell only available right now) duplication method. Are there benefits beyond "not needing to click on a soft redirect" which do not apply to other soft redirects (such as large sections of Meta-Wiki's Help namespace) that apply to these pages you are thinking about? --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining the reasons behind the move, but I still think it's a really bad idea to effectively delete the policy pages and their translations from Meta. Of course there are more clicks when random people click on footnotes, but random people aren't going to be able to translate texts relating to Wikimedia if they have no experience with the projects. The transfer is creating a divide between the policies hosted on Meta and the WMF policies which all are much more important to editors than they are to readers. There doesn't seem to be a history in the imported translation pages, not even a link to the original pages where all the text was taken from. It's impossible to see who translated which part in case you want to communicate with that user about the translation. And just because a translation is 100% finished, that doesn't mean that it's a good translation. As for soft redirects, on enwiki there are 800 links that point just to the URL "m:Universal Code of Conduct", and there are probably tens of thousands of links to the policies across the projects. I don't know about others, but every time I end up on a soft redirect I'm much more likely to click the back button than the redirect. kyykaarme (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kyykaarme - the translation system used on Foundation Governance Wiki is the same as the one for Meta-Wiki - with the same controls in place. I am unclear how the relocation of the content impacts the quality of translations given the translators are generally the same. Regarding history of translations, I agree that is something that should be addressed. The current solution for moving translations around is not ideal, and there is currently a Phabricator ticket working to resolve the issue in the future. Again, I remain open to alternative solutions - but do not see leaving things as they are to be a good solution as the "click through" problem does not appear to present higher risk than the confusion caused by duplication, errors between versions, duplicate work for translators, etc. That some pages erroneously linked to the duplicate instead of the primary location, in my mind, speaks to the problem with duplication more than presents a reason not to solve these problems and prevent it from becoming even worse over time. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- "I am unclear how the relocation of the content impacts the quality of translations given the translators are generally the same." Well, you're the one who said there would be more translators because more people would find the pages through footnotes. I've done translations on Translatewiki, Meta, MediaWiki and Commons, and on every one of those there are at most just a handful of users who do translations into Finnish, for example. The more fractured the translations are, the more difficult it is to do them. My suggestion: delete the translations from the FoundationWiki and link instead to the Meta translations, like it's now done on the Privacy Policy page. Then the only thing that needs to be kept in check is that the English versions are the same, and that shouldn't be an overwhelming task, as they shouldn't be frequently edited anyway. As for discussions, decide if they should be hosted on Meta or FoundWiki (my suggestion would be the former) and put some soft redirects (:P) on the talk pages on the other wiki. kyykaarme (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Again - I can appreciate the possible risk that translators "will not follow" content to Foundation Governance Wiki. However, that is an unknown, and prior to translations being previously disabled on that wiki - there was an base of translators even with the hurdles in place, which no longer exist (specifically that you do not need an account specifically for that wiki - your Wikimedia SUL account works there now. I would like to see how things play out before we determine how much of an impact that risk has. Additionally, without any of the eventual planned outreach to translators undertaken (they are on hold until everything is fully in place), we are already seeing more activity than expected. Also, that relates to quantity and availability of translations, I am not sure how it relates to quality given the people with access to translate on Foundation Governance Wiki are the same people with access to translate on Meta-Wiki. So the risk of a poor translator engaging is equal from my perspective (and also why we have consistent translation disclaimers in place on Foundation Governance Wiki).
- That all said, the solution you are proposing does not resolve what are known risks and barriers. For example, the links to Meta-Wiki translations must be updated manually - and historically that has not been done consistently as it is ultimately not a great use of limited resources when automated alternatives exist. Additionally, it still leaves confusion (which platform has the right version) and leaves room for discrepancies (which despite efforts - has happened multiple times). Plus, we have already learned that asking for translations of a duplicate vs. primary copy leads to problems with quality and accuracy of translations over time. Finally, one motive/advantage of this consolidation is ease of search of policies specifically (vs. the entirety of a wiki's massive content). Housing the translations separately from the primary version leaves a gap in experience between English and non-English readers of the content. Global templates, global pages, or bots capable of understanding the setup of translation pages would provide other possible solutions - but each of those is potentially years away. Waiting and allowing problems such as linking to duplicate vs actual policy to grow does not seem to be our best possible route overall. But again, I think we should decide based on knowns and data vs. possibilities - so if we do indeed run into problems - we can reassess. I think it is a little premature to say these are known problems though, and as such, I am not sure they outweigh the potential gains of trying this out. Although I genuinely do appreciate the care and attention to detail on this, I empathize with your desires to do this well, and appreciate you brainstorming with me and sounding out my responses. They have helped inform what metrics I should pay close attention to, and understand perspectives I may not have fully considered before. I recognize it may not appear like progress as general approach remains the same, but I do want to convey it has been helpful and had an impact on how this will play out. Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- "I am unclear how the relocation of the content impacts the quality of translations given the translators are generally the same." Well, you're the one who said there would be more translators because more people would find the pages through footnotes. I've done translations on Translatewiki, Meta, MediaWiki and Commons, and on every one of those there are at most just a handful of users who do translations into Finnish, for example. The more fractured the translations are, the more difficult it is to do them. My suggestion: delete the translations from the FoundationWiki and link instead to the Meta translations, like it's now done on the Privacy Policy page. Then the only thing that needs to be kept in check is that the English versions are the same, and that shouldn't be an overwhelming task, as they shouldn't be frequently edited anyway. As for discussions, decide if they should be hosted on Meta or FoundWiki (my suggestion would be the former) and put some soft redirects (:P) on the talk pages on the other wiki. kyykaarme (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kyykaarme - the translation system used on Foundation Governance Wiki is the same as the one for Meta-Wiki - with the same controls in place. I am unclear how the relocation of the content impacts the quality of translations given the translators are generally the same. Regarding history of translations, I agree that is something that should be addressed. The current solution for moving translations around is not ideal, and there is currently a Phabricator ticket working to resolve the issue in the future. Again, I remain open to alternative solutions - but do not see leaving things as they are to be a good solution as the "click through" problem does not appear to present higher risk than the confusion caused by duplication, errors between versions, duplicate work for translators, etc. That some pages erroneously linked to the duplicate instead of the primary location, in my mind, speaks to the problem with duplication more than presents a reason not to solve these problems and prevent it from becoming even worse over time. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I had not appreciated that the policies were termed Foundation-maintained, or that policies of that kind were stored on govwiki. Meta is still getting more hits than govwiki, and I think that calls for an exercise in updating errant links, but I understand now why this migration exercise is taking place. Many thanks, AGK ■ 09:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining the reasons behind the move, but I still think it's a really bad idea to effectively delete the policy pages and their translations from Meta. Of course there are more clicks when random people click on footnotes, but random people aren't going to be able to translate texts relating to Wikimedia if they have no experience with the projects. The transfer is creating a divide between the policies hosted on Meta and the WMF policies which all are much more important to editors than they are to readers. There doesn't seem to be a history in the imported translation pages, not even a link to the original pages where all the text was taken from. It's impossible to see who translated which part in case you want to communicate with that user about the translation. And just because a translation is 100% finished, that doesn't mean that it's a good translation. As for soft redirects, on enwiki there are 800 links that point just to the URL "m:Universal Code of Conduct", and there are probably tens of thousands of links to the policies across the projects. I don't know about others, but every time I end up on a soft redirect I'm much more likely to click the back button than the redirect. kyykaarme (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Gregory. I cannot agree with the statistical argument, that people already visit govwiki if needing copies of a policy. Clearly, most people are accessing the TOU and Cookies Statement from website footers, which link directly there. That is not true of policies not linked in the footer: m:ANPDP is still getting more hits than foundation:Policy:Access to nonpublic personal data policy (1,317 vs 1,077). It's good to see the ANPDP noticeboard has been returned to Meta. The policy page itself needs to return too. Actually, I don't think it needs to return; I understand completely why you desire the policy's original copy to be located on govwiki. The real problem is with the meta page being an empty page, a soft redirect. Resulting from that, the Privacy and global CheckUser policies are now located on Meta, but the ANPD Policy is not, and one has to remember to link some policies on Meta but others on govwiki. What would make life far easier is if the Meta page could simply mirror the govwiki one. (This might need a bespoke technical solution, like a bot to copy over changes.) The ANPDP statistic illustrates this problem too - people are apparently just not finishing the full click-through process. Finally, I'm sorry to say that authority might be an issue here, too: the Meta community is entrusted with keeping a copy of global policies. You are sacking its copies, replacing them with a soft redirect, without having consulted the community (unless I have overlooked something). The remaining plans for migration have not been disclosed, but you have mentioned Everything else being migrated, which I take to be meaning the meta page will be replaced with a soft redirect. Duplication and the transfer of ownership of the "principal" policy would be innocuous. Actual migration really strikes at a fundamental part of what Meta is all about… AGK ■ 12:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- The duplication of policy pages (and especially of the translations) is a problem, but I think this is the wrong solution. Who's going to go to yet another wiki to translate and discuss? Maybe people will find their way there, but I have doubts. kyykaarme (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Good day. FYI Meta talk:Deletion policy#Proposed amendment to WM:CSD --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 06:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Minorax, for the FYI. I am happy to follow whichever direction community feels is best. I have been working to remove the "redirected" pages from the translation system, but it leaves the Translation namespace pages behind - as you noted. I also experimented with redirecting the language subpages on WMF Resolutions/Travel costs for chapter meetups Q2 2006 (/ko).
- It is possible there are some footer links still incorrectly pointing to Meta-Wiki pages - but setting up redirects should resolve that issue, and I am in the final step of closing phab:T331680 (pending phab:T358061 being resolved) - which should resolve any lingering footer link issues. I suppose there could be other links, but I have not personally heard anything about them and do not imagine they are "active" content. Either way, redirects for the language pages should resolve the issue.
- Thank you for bringing this issue up. The initial setup was essentially the result of negotiations in multiple places, but I tend to agree that enough time has passed such that we can work towards a more "long-term" solution. Again, happy to support the outcome of discussion. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Well played, Greg
Your support and participation were instrumental to the Wikimedia Sound Logo contest. Thank you for playing a major role in the global call for the Sound of all Human Knowledge!