User talk:Jmorgan (WMF)/Archives/1

Active discussions

Welcome to Meta!Edit

Hello, Jmorgan (WMF)/Archives/1. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jmorgan (WMF)! Thank you for drafting an Individual Engagement Grant proposal. The deadline to submit a completed proposal to be considered for funding in this round is 15 February 2013. When you have completed all 3 parts of your proposal, please submit it for review by updating the wikimarkup in your page from status=DRAFT to status=PROPOSED. If you have questions or need more help submitting your proposal, you can ask them on the IEG Questions page. Thanks!

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Jmorgan (WMF), please complete your grant proposal by February 15thEdit

Hello Jmorgan (WMF)! Thank you for drafting an Individual Engagement Grant proposal. The deadline to submit a completed proposal to be considered for funding in this round is 15 February 2013. When you have completed all 3 parts of your proposal, please submit it for review by updating the wikimarkup in your page from status=DRAFT to status=PROPOSED. If you have questions or need more help submitting your proposal, you can ask them on the IEG Questions page. Thanks!

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, GrantsBot (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Individual Engagement Grant proposals due 15 February 2013Edit

Hello Jmorgan (WMF)! Thank you for drafting an Individual Engagement Grant proposal.

The deadline to submit a completed proposal to be considered for funding in this round is 15 February 2013.

When you have completed all 3 parts of your proposal, please submit it for review by updating the wikimarkup in your page from status=DRAFT to status=PROPOSED. If you have questions or need more help submitting your proposal, you can ask for it at IdeaLab Help. Thanks!

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, GrantsBot (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tl draft untaggingEdit

Hi. What it was breaking? Why dont you just use /en subpage that has no translate-markup? --Base (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Base. And sorry. I've just reverted myself; it's back to your version now. Because you're right, it's not broken. I was unfamiliar with the translate template and without thinking I just linked to {{Draft}} like I aways do on en-wiki. When I saw funny markup, and saw it was a recent addition, I checked through some of the other pages here on meta that link directly to {{Draft}} and confirmed that they looked funny too. So it's not broken, but adding the translation banner does seem to have skewed the formatting on a bunch of other pages that were already linking directly to Template:Draft. Do you happen to know of an easy way to fix this without doing it all manually? There are probably close to a hundred of them. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, seems that I forgot to fix all transcludions. The easiest way to fix all pages not manualy is just to change all transcludions to /en by bot but it seems to be not best solution because in some pages perhaps it should have autotranslation or other fancy features. I will think about it at the evening. --Base (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool. If you decide to do it manually, let me know and I'll split the work with you :) Jtmorgan (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Motivation barnstarEdit

Motivation barnstar
Thanks for your enthusiastic support and recruiting for the April 22 research office hour. --Pine 01:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Automatic reminder to participate in GAC activitiesEdit

Dear Jmorgan (WMF),

As you know, the Grant Advisory Committee (GAC) has a standard of participation commitment. It appears you have not made any contributions to grant proposal discussions in the past three months. If you're no longer able to devote time to helping with grant prpoposal evaluation, we understand -- just let us know, please; if you are still interested, please do engage with some of the open grant proposals in the coming two weeks. If you don't, your GAC membership will automatically expire.

If you have any questions, or think this automated message is mistaken, please contact the grants team at grants AT wikimedia DOT org. Thanks! GrantsBot (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Participation Support Program surveyEdit

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Global Economic MapEdit

Hi Jmorgan, I am working on the Global Economic Map project here:

Do you have any suggestions on what I should be working on to make this project more viable with the community? Mcnabber091 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mcnabber. I love this project. I'll give it some thought and hopefully have some feedback for you by the end of the week. With that in mind, and given you're (relatively) local, do you have any interest in attending the Seattle meetup of the global Wiki Research Hackathon I'm hosting next Saturday? If you can make it, even virtually, I'd be happy to sit down with you sometime during the day and talk about the project. Attending the hackathon could also be a good way to sync up with other researchers, designers, and community members who are interested in this kind of work. Let me know! Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow I will try my best to make it. Sounds like a really good opportunity. Mcnabber091 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Sweet! Sign up if it looks like you can make it? It'll help me figure out how much pizza to order :) And obviously spread the word to any other local Wikipedians who might be interested. There's a call up at the Seattle meetup page on Hope to see you there! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Just posted a bunch more info to the hackathon page. Jtmorgan (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Grants:Learning patterns/Counting Quality and Valued images in Wikimedia Commons ONE DOWN! :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal ClinicsEdit

Hello, Jmorgan (WMF)! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)

Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:

  • Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
  • Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
  • Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC

Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list

Revert why ?Edit

Why this ?

Was there any bug ? You've just remoed all the translation work that was working, when trying to add a new section that does not work. There were incorrect mismatched tags, in addition to a few adjustments for translations. I don't understand your revert that goes to the wrong direction. This means that similar ajustments will need be reapplied later. I had not changed the general layout of the page, I did not delete any content. verdy_p (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm testing, Verdy_p. All day long I've been testing all the pages you've worked on this weekend, trying to figure out what you changed, and what effects those changes have. As one of the primary maintainers of all grantmaking content on Meta, I need to know what's happening to our content. In future, if you and I coordinate before you make sweeping changes across Grants, it will be more efficient for both of us. I'm sorry that you lost work, but I'm losing work time too now, testing, fixing, and getting up to speed. I'll restore your edits to that page now; hopefully that action does not confuse the translation extension.
As of now, it looks like most of your changes can stay. I won't be reverting much more, and once I'm done with my review I will leave a detailed report for you with some suggestions of how we can work better together next time. Per your request that we not have this conversation on your talk page, I will post the report here and ping you.
As I said before, I'm actively working on this, so please refrain from making any more changes until you hear from me (in a couple hours). Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I can explain you why editing a section does not work: the section headings (between == ==) are containing translate tags, which are then splitting them in two lines once the page is marked for translation.
These tags were already like this before my edit.
We've been told in the Translate toom to avoid putting translate tag in the middle section headers; place them around these lines and the problem is solved.
This is a current bug of the Translate tool that transforms the usual MediaWiki syntax, and a limitation of MediaWiki that cannot find these headings when parsing the marked content to locate the sections to edit.
I did not introduce this change; they were already there. verdy_p (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, the edit section bug should be solved, but for now the workaound is simply to put the equal signs within the translate tags, instead of outside of them. The transalte tool should find a better way to hanle these special wiki lines (section headings, list) withou exposing these special characters to the content to translate.
Personnally I don't like the way the Translate tool tags these lines, it should not split them (but if you attempt to remove the required newline after each T:id domment marks, the Translate tool does not accept it. This is a bug to report too against this tool. verdy_p (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the section edit bug. I suspected it was something like that. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you want help with your Probox module and your sandbox test ? (visibly the module is missing some initialized parameters to work; I know that there has been some changes in the Lua interface that has already caused troubles, the various edits in the template won't solve it without corrections in the module itself and its invokation). verdy_p (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I probably will want some help soon. Thanks for offering! Right now, the module does work (when I don't break it, as I seem to have done about an hour ago). I'll ping you for input in a day or so when I've worked out the latest kink (pretty sure that one's not related to Lua interface changes, since it was working before I reorganized my code). Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to Grantmaking content across meta: impact report and next stepsEdit

Since our last conversation, Verdy p’s, I’ve pored over your recent changes to Grants:, Programs: and their related templates and categories, and done some tests. Most of the additions are find, many of the changes are improvements, and some of the changes have caused problems (or will), and I’m in the process of fixing them.

This’ll be a long one. Sorry. I’ll go into some of these changes in more detail below. To start off, though, a couple of general points.

  • If you’re going to make changes to a page that is regularly updated by a bot, talk to the bot maintainer first. This isn’t about ownership, just common sense. Bot-based workflows are brittle; they don’t handle exceptions well. And bots won’t change their behavior just because you revert them. I’ve made this point before, so I was very surprised to see that you moved Programs:Evaluation_portal/Learning_patterns. Sure enough, those changes broke my script.
What I did was to move only the translated fixed header (not supposed to be modified by your bot) in a common template used on two pages; so that it is translated only once. This content was then invoked by inclusion. verdy_p (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If you would like to make major changes to the design of a template that someone else made, and that is transcluded on a bunch of pages, it’s courteous to talk to them about those changes first. This is also not about ownership, it’s about being a respectful collaborator. It’s also common sense: the person who created the template likely designed it the way they did for a reason. It might be useful to know that reason.

Now to talk about some of the individual cases.

I had to revert this. Your change broke the bot, and also made that information effectively uneditable by most people, and much more difficult for me to maintain. I will grant you that it is puzzling and redundant to have the same content up in multiple places. That was a temporary solution. However, putting the basic information about Learning Patterns, which is about 1000 words of content, into a template causes bigger problems: edits to that template will not be automatically reflected in the page where it is transcluded. We’ve talked about this problem before. The information about learning patterns needs to stay in the content namespaces. Let me worry about whether it lives in Grants:Learning_patterns or Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/Learning_patterns. I’ll make everything right. For now, we can live with a little duplication.
My comment above. I have not moved the place where your bot posts its list of features. This template did not exist before, the content was duplicated on the two list pages. verdy_p (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The separate translation of the header did not affect the editability of the main page listing patterns or showing one. There's absolteuyly no need to mark to make these pages again. The header was transalted separately, and change to translations were immediately reflected to the viewed pages where the header was included. I don't understand your rationale for deleting it completely.
I am convonced that these pages merit other languages than just English (English is not in fact a Wikimedia priority for these grants and other languages are needed for out goals! These projects will emerge with most of their contributors not speaking it and unable to request funding and justify correctly their project, even if they have a community supporting their work they propose). Even If they propose something in English they will want to show that to their users, without having to duplicate this on another site. E.g. a project lead by a group in Wikimedia France will want to use French as their primary working language, and even more during the initial steps before the project starts and long before it becomes a full proposal. They want to be able to submit an idea, even if someone else comes next to provide the English text (That's why I hop that the Translate tool will later allow wpecifying which language is in the source instead of assuming English only). verdy_p (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The change you made wasn't necessary, it broke my bot, and the template namespace isn't supposed to host full pages of content. I don't see why I need another reason to revert your move. I would let this one go. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you bot is looking for, I just supposed it was looking only for the 1st section heading to replace the content of that section.
Also the template was obvisouly not a full page of content, it has no section it is a shared intro in the two pages including it, and that should be translated only once (this is to avoid that double translation that I moved this header in a template can't you see that ? verdy_p (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The changes you made here are mostly fine. Here and elsewhere, I appreciate your general cleanup and standardization of formatting markup case and spacing, and the substitutions you made (calling uselang rather than the subpagename magic word, etc) do not seem to have had any negative impact, though it would be useful for me to ‘’know’’ why you are making such substitutions. I always enjoy learning useful stuff.

The SUBPAGENAME has caused many problems in lots of pages and there are two cases to handle how and where a page is used or transcluded. We would like these pages to include the content language when the viewed page is translated, otherwise the user language. Also some subpagenames cause problems. The Template:Uselang (returning the user language or the language selected by query parameter uselang in the URL if it's present) and Template:Pagelang (returning the language of the page content, and fixing some subpagesnams that are not language codes) are used as a central point. verdy_p (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information here. I didn't know SUBPAGENAME was troublesome. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you made these changes. Could you explain? What advantage is there to calling TNTN rather than a bare #switch? As far as I can see, all that does is introduce another dependency into perfectly functional code. Jon and I created that template as a workaround for the “template lock-out” problem (which, again, you and I have discussed). I don’t like the idea of changing it unless those changes improve performance, usability, etc. Also, while I don’t have any problem with adding additional optional parameters to the template, they’re not useful without documentation to tell people what they’re for :) Could you add a description of those parameters to the doc page?

This is because subpagenames do not work realiably with the translate tool. And when we cannot use the "Special:MyLanguage/" prefix for transclusions, TNT comes to help, except that TNT is limited: it frequently internally want to transclude the target page with contains other translated pages using TNT. This causes a script error due to self-recursion in TNT. TNTN fixes that by not expanding the language. Also it accepts a given uselang parameter in order to resolve the language to use, and find some fallbacks (the full fallback system is still not finished but it solves most problems I've found in Meta). Note that some language codes usable in pagenames are not suitable in the translate tool which blocks them (example for variants of Chinese).
Using TNTN (without self-expansion) fixes that (in addition it supports specifying the wanted language, which is not necessaruly the language of the current page, notably for content pages still not translated where the uer language will be used instead). verdy_p (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow your explanation here, I'm afraid. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Couple things here. First, while I appreciate the work you’ve put into improving the IdeaLab infobox, I’m afraid to say that much of that work is wasted: the IdeaLab infobox is being replaced by a Lua-based Infobox, which will work entirely differently. Also, Heather has put a ton of work into that template, and she takes a lot of time to make the right design decisions. I very seldom attempt to “improve” her work without talking to her about it first. I suggest that in future you do the same. As you know, she’s very approachable, and knows a ton about good design. So, in cases like this, it’s a good idea all-around to talk before you change stuff.

One more minor thing: I like that you separated the content from the formatting of the infobox, but why not follow the standard the Jon and I used, putting the formatting on the main template page and the content in a translatable lookup table on a subpage? You seem to have done the opposite. Most people, when they hit the ‘edit’ button on a template page, expect to see the formatting, not a lookup table. I won’t revert you here, since that template is going to be decommissioned soon anyway, although Heather might decide to. In future if you TCT-ize Grantmaking templates, I respectfully request that you follow the conventions that Jon established, to avoid inconsistency.

I discovered the way TCT works after, this is something that works, but that still does not provide any way to display a page in another language than English (you need a translated landing page that has the language, and you can only create it and have it maintained if yu have at least one translation unit in it (not just the page title), otherwose the page will never be marked and specialized pages will not be created.
You can still migrate the text marked in "translate" tags in a TCT template this won't change fundamentally the method. Once the "Content" tempalte is updated, mark it twice so that it is translated properly, then replace the translate tags and the text in the middle by calls to TCT. I've done a couple edits later using that method including in the portals (you have reverted all that, meaning that there's no more any translation). verdy_p (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your explanation here, I'm afraid. Also, according to my contribs only things I reverted were edits to Grants:Start (as a test) and the Pattern header, where I reverted your unexplained page move. I then restored the Grants:Start edits, so here (and above) when you talk about all the reverts I've made, I'm not sure which ones you're thinking of. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I used a move to preserve the history, before creating the translation itself. The rest of the pages being overwritten each time by the bot, the history plays no role except keeping multple bots imports. verdy_p (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Multilingual categories

This is interesting to me. I see you’ve done a lot of work making our categories translatable. I can see how it will be useful, so thank you. But are there any caveats or dependencies I should know about? My bot relies heavily on the category infrastructure.~

I know that the category infrastructure helps finding and collecting the content. I"ve not removed any category, I've collected as much as I could to find them (n many cases, may categories were just red links, and unmaintained, chosen randomly or badly structured.
What you really need to know is that the Translate tool has bugs and the most irritating one (for translate admins) is that all pages MUST be marked twice: after each change in a page, mark it, edit it again, add/remove the space in the middle of "<language/>" and mark the page again. It you don't, do that, the changes are not reflected in translations, and translation stats are wrong. Yes I know it is a pain, and it takes time, but gor now I live with this work around (that I have explained to several other translate admins, and also discussed in bug reports about this tool).
In general marking a page is not enough: it's easy to make some minor errors that you will only really see when performing an actual complete translation. That's why each time I mark a new version, I actually make a translation (in French) immediately, and then for testing the layout I initiate a transaltion in Arabic (just setting the page name with the /ar suffix is enough to see the layout generated, even if I don't translate all the rest, I leave that to others to do). verdy_p (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow. You have to mark the page and edit it again? Have you submitted a Bugzilla bug for this? What a pain in the ass. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes the bug is reported since long in Bugzilla. But you need the double marking only for the source page. You don't need to do that when using the Translate tool... except hat when translating items, you also need to reapply the last translated unit a second time to finlize the completion level to 100% (for this double submission, you don't need to perform an actual change in the Translate tool: select a transation unit you've created, insert a space and remove it in two keystrokes, and reapply. Otherwise a translation unit is forgotten and not counted. This additional bug is also reported.
Translation admins that need to check if trnalsations are complete do not need to double edit a second time a unit in each translation to see what is missing, they can also apply a pseudo-null edit (add or drop a space in the "languages/" tag before the slash) to update the stats for all languages. Otherwise some existing translations will be forgotten. Yes the Translate tool has problems with synchronizing, it uses a "FuzzyBot" using a task that is not delayed and executed immediately by reading the current state of edited pages as they were before the edit, so it does not see the changes because it reads from the cache (which is not updated or invalidated when edits are submitted by the tool...).
Yes this is s a "pain in the ass", reported, confirmed by all transaltion admins. The reason of that is specific to Wikimedia sites with its specific infrastructure of caches. In (from where the code originates) it does not occur. There's something missing in the MediaWiki API to control how extensions can bypass the caches or invalidate it after their own page modifications. The modification APIs forget to update or invalidate these caches, and this is a known bug that also affects a few other extensions. The effect also affects bots when they run too early after a modification (on Wikimeia sites, there's a delay of about one or two seconds before modifications are effectively accessible to other processes to external bots, as if the SQL quzeries were not executed immediately to the backend storage server, but only added to a queue.
For the internal details, of how these delays are created and conditions of synchronization between concurrent tasks or in the API, this goes too far technically in what I can debug and tricky details are also not completely understood by authors of the Translate tool on (initially BetaWiki was an external experimental project before it became the offcial translation platform for MediaWiki itself). I've tried to ask to seeral developers and still they don't know how to solve it cleanly, and for now we still need these double-edit workarounds (which will probably remain ad long as the Translate extension is not merged into the core API of MediaWiki, which wn't happen before further developments and peer review with other users of MediaWiki, which have their own separate system for managing translations; or that use, or Launchpad, with desynchronized imports of translations to their project). verdy_p (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to work with you Verdy p. I would appreciate your help with maintaining a strong internationalization infrastructure within Grants. You have a lot of expertise in that area, and But we have to collaborate, not compete. And that means talking first, when there are big changes. This will help us avoid nasty surprises, frustration and wasted work in future. I want to be respectful of your time and your expertise, but it’s part of my job to maintain these spaces in such a way that they address the needs of Grantees, Grant Officers, and other Wikimedians. So I need to be in the loop. When it comes to the IdeaLab, Siko does also. When it comes to the Evaluation Portal, it’s probably a good idea to reach out to Jaime or Jessie. Again: this isn’t about ownership. It’s a practical matter.

I'm not opposed to changing things (especially to fixing GrantsBot, which I am happy to concede is poorly documented, frequently breaks and causes various problems of its own). If you want to work together, let's talk. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I was not imagining that my changes were so huge, because I have constantly troed to preserve the maximum, and fixing only what was causing problems (including "minor" CSS errors that I know sonce long that they will bug in some browsers). Thnigs I care much is:
  • Consistant order, consistant tagging, recommended CSS practices, making sure that italic and bold styles would collide with translations
  • Line-height; never use them in em units.
  • punctuation and spaces ; don't assume the same rules as in English
  • capitalization: the US Engish style confuses translators about what is to keep capitalized. Use minimal capitalization.
  • composite sentences; avoid breaking them, even for a simple thing like "1 items" (be careful about the placement of the number relative to other words, or plural rules which are language dependant).
  • page width; not all people have wide screens. Large tables should be avoided.
  • accessibility rules (frequently bad in tables)
  • alignment problems : some translations will need larger texts which may require line wraps. putting two lists side by side but translated separately, where one item in list is supposed to be aligned with the matching item in the second list does not work. We need tables for that.
many other details that I find occasionally. A translate admin should translate compeltely a page or wrok closely with someone that will test the generated layout. This is the only way to detect problems.
Also a good text is to look at how the page looks on a narrow screen. I frequently test it by reducing the window width to about 800px (this is important for tablet users who cannot use the mobile version or want to see more).
it is possible to have a layout that looks great on narrow screens but that still uses the extra width on large screens. However very long lines (more than 40em) are not accessible (Wikipedia is poor for this, may people cannot read articles easily wthout first reducing their window, in addition MediaWiki uses a defautl font size smaller than the browser default, a bad practice in my opinion). So most people need to zoom in, with their browser or increase the font size. In zoomed view we get inconsustant layouts.
Fixing the layouts for narrow screens and for zoomed view or for plaforms that use wider fonts by default (notably small tablets and smartphones) is not easy, we have to follow the good practice of not exceeding 40em or a bit less for line lengths (36em is best, and works well within indented sections or lists, and lists of short names are fine at 18em, even go below 12em if the content is translatable).
Also try presering the available vertical space on screen : never use a "br" tag after a conditional part of a template, and be careful about empty parts. Readers don't see the interest of these extra blanks requiring them to scroll down wen it should not be necessary.
Also negative margins at top of pages are severaly broken (you've used that, but the rendering is completely random dependng on browsers). There are certainly other ways to hide or prioritize the top content.
I hope all this can help you understanding the many tests I perform. Some of my edits may look superfluous to you.
This information helps, thanks. I agree it's important to follow consistent practices and be flexible (I would say tablets are a serious edge case, though, and should not be a high priority). If you leave descriptive edit comments, that will increase the likelihood that edits like these are not reverted by others. Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing. On Grants:Start, we need edits to the transcluded subpages (like Grants:Start/Approach) to be pushed through without having to do the null-edit trick (or re-mark the subpage for translation). Anyone should be able to edit those pages, and have their edits displayed on Grants:Start, without needing extra help. This is not the way it works right now, I believe because you're now calling them through TNT. Am I wrong? Do you have any suggestions for how to fix this? Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a solution for that but this requires tracking on these untranslated page (something we can work on; notably for pages of lists of features) not the 'content language' but the user kanguage (see above the discussion about userlang vs. pagelang) and make sure that translatable templates can be used according to a specified uselang= parameter in their transclusion place.
You have reverted changes that were intended for that.
See for example the talk pages where the user language is used in the top banner. But most contents should be translatable (and I agree that pages submitted by users should be not necessarily in English, but if they wish they should be able to create a page in English also translated in their own language. The translate tool is not absolutely requried to create these translations, as long as they use the /lang suffix for naming these pages.
Later, the translate tool will provide a mean to allow the source language to be in other language than English. There will be corrections to allow transcluding pages directly with the Special;MyLanguage/ prefix (for using the user language, not the page content language). And marking pages for translations should be more open (at least in some namespace or by authorizing it in a base page contaning subpages separately transalted with their own /lang suffix (but they won't benefr from the translation memory). verdy_p (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Final note: you accuse TNT(N) for something it never does itself: propagating the content is not its job; this is the job of the translate tool (even if you use the /SUBPAGENAME trick this will still not work). TNT(N) resolve the pagename according to the version that is currently marked for translation, so it neer uses the editable basepage (using translate tags). TNT does not replace the translate tool (and the Translate tool is also not required to use TNT(N)). But if you don't use the Translate tool, the translations will still never be synchronized according to the source...
I can criticize the way this Translate tool currently works, it is not enough open (but it won't open more before its most irritating bugs are fixed). On my opjnion; most of the Tranlate tool shoudl be indetegrated in core MediaWiki (possibiy with the assistance of standard bots maintained with MediaWiki) and should be using a simpler marking. inserting the T:ID in the text is certainly not needed (usng T:ID should be exceptional and manual for specific things. It should be just enough to mark the page using a basic category or a single __MAGIC_KEYWORD__ at bottom of pages. MediaWiki has worker threads for its job queue, the tool does not use it properly.
Also I don't like the way the tool manages page moves and the fact that it write-protects the translated pages. MEdiaWiki hos histories that can help manage the edits. and it could more easily track related changes occuring in any selected source. The translate tool also uses a syntax inconsistant with the MediaWiki parser (as seen in the section headings bug).
I know that all these limitations are irritating, but I try to live with them, but for a wider scale we'll soon lack translate admins if we continue with the current too restricted usage policy. Basically I also don't like the term "atranslate admins", when this should be just "confirmed translators" after experimenting for a while with a simpler tool. Once way to do that would be to couple the tool with the Revision tool so that any one can initiate the preparation work (which takes most of the time) and still start translating their unconfirmed revision and testing it When this is OK for them, they would just add the page as candidate for inclusion in the main revision viewed by others.
And one other thing is damned unusable ; the Translation groups UI. which is extremely slow, uses lot of memory on the browser, smply because it is not navigatable. For me these groups should work like catagrory pages, and adding a page to a group should be as easy as adding a page to a category, directly in the page editor.
There are other usability issues in the new version of the tool (for translators): links not working in the translation memory (they were working in the older design). verdy_p (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Heh. You will get no argument from me about the usability of the translation tool (or lack thereof). Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately... Those that really use it are themselves translators. Just having basic Translate admin rights just to submit data without caring about difficulties experienced by translators or that do not monitor talks about bugs in translations, do not see the problems: In ,y opinion al Translate admins should also test immediately the marked pages by trying to translate at least one language completely. And see the effects on layout, make sure that ll translate tags are correctly inserted, or see where there are missing tvars, and see which translations units are too repeatedly needing to be retranslated. Prepapring pages for translations takes considerable time. compared to creating the pages themselves or submitting translations for a new language
And that's why it is very irritating to see every preparation work simply deleted; when I preserved alsmost everything except problems to avoid additional works to translators to correct these issues). Some translate admins do not care about the time spent by non-admin translators. And page designers do not care enough about translations (notably when they assume that the text will have the same size in the layout: Once of your collegues in the staff reverted everything just because of minor alignment problems whose origin is in fact bad CSS structuration that I did not revolution (I preserved as much as possible, fixing the esiest parts, and the few remaining issues could be solved but it would have required moving parts of the content to change its order, instead she just reverted and then realized herself that even her code had alignment problems which was solved temporarily n English until the content generated by a randomizeing template was changed a few minutes later using a different space on screen...).
So when she or you said that I broke things, this is false, if they speak about details that were alredy broken before my changes (and as these pages were badly coategorized and also not managed cooperatively, we have now pages maintained isolately ignoring every thing where other contributors could help debugging and tracking correctly (in some of these reverts, she also deleted the categorization, hiding again the info necessary for maintenance). I personnaly find this antocollaborative and not in the spirit of these pages which are supposed to communicate and facilitate the communication with a larger community. Grants pages and training pages are missing people essentially spekaing other languages of English, these pages are too much centric to US or UK who don't really need grants and already have solid chapters and local communities in their wiki projects (but they shouls also co,,unicate more with others).
This is largely felt in the Asian and Global South world, where Wikimedia should play a more important role (but their existing users are not heard enough as they can't participate to most important discussions and decisions taken only by English speakers). But this has also caused problems with other European communities (e.g. with Wikimedia Germany hose requests have been ignored too often). For this reason it is becoming more and more difficult to coordinate woks between localized wikis. They also now criticize more loudly decision taken unilaterally by the Foundation, which replied that these decisions were open, when in fact they were accessible only to native or near-native English speakers. Most other users are compeltely unaware of what's happening here and that's the man reason why I want to maximize the content of Meta-Wiki available in more languages. IMHO, translation is absolutely not an option, it is a must for almost all in Meta-Wiki and we must work to facilitate it, instead of stying glued only to some static visual aspect and sraying alone to keep responsability of some pages.
I value your work, for its organisational aspect and your presence and also for analysing the most urgent needs. But you should better value mine and include more people in all your work, they will slowly come to you, one by one. Building the pages for rants or Learning patterns should not take a considerable effort to be usable equally in all languages (this does not mean that there won't be much more English writers/readers of these pages).
I think that the work of the WMF staff will be better appreciated if it is for supporting and maintaining a presence: As much as possible they should deletegate works to others and only take it back in charge if there's lack of activity by volunteers to fill some gaps. It won't be ossible if you ignore those that want to benefit of work done by large communities to improve their own. These pages are intended to boost them, not to depreciate their difficult taks (notably for creating training materials). There's absolutely no reason why Chinese or Arabic users can't contribute as usefully and easily as the English speaking world. Even French and German users feel difficulties to cooperate with other projects and decisions.
Final note: your personal talk page (or my own) is not the appropriate place to discuss these Grants and Learning pages. What is missing is a real project page whuch should have been created since the begining/ MetaWiki is not the Foundation wiki where the staff can meet easily in an office. The project wil lhave an activity for a limtied time than it will pause with minor discussions until there's a new great idea to work on (that you won't have initiated yourself). MetaWiki is intended to allow online meetings of people that won't travel to meet you directly every week. You may have some office hours in IRC, but IRC is a bad tool for managing histories and keep track of what's done and what can be done and how and it is not the appropriate place to experiment things and get results later: only the office hours do not match. and even in this talk,tou can see easily that we have hours (or days...) of delays before seeing replies and replying. But it's just too easy to reverse everything speedily. verdy_p (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please test the new feature Special:PageMigrationEdit

As a Google Summer of Code Intern, I have been working on the Mass Migration tools project for Wikimedia. We are now ready with a minimal working product. The tool helps translators and translation administrators import the old translations into the Translate Extension.

An instance of the same has been set up on labs. You can find some useful instructions on the main page.

Please test the tool and report bugs/suggestions using the link provided on the main page itself. You can have a look at the tracking bug to check already reported bugs.

Looking forward to hearing from you! Cheers. BPositive (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Posters Learning patterEdit

Hi J-Mo, I made a few adjustments to the LP you created about posters. I think the small image accompanying the pattern should be more iconic, since it is small and will keep being small once you open the pattern. So, if you say posters I think Toulouse Lautrec. :-) Then, I added the german poster bigger, in line with the other picture showing the functionality of posters. Let me know if this is ok! Best, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Learning patternsEdit

Jonathan, I'm presuming that you're ultimately responsible for the growth and maintenance of the learning patterns. I see them as a critical step in giving our communities the ability to self-train for "bottom–up" quality improvement, and further in setting up packages of advice for program managers to enrich their activities; both aspects, I think, will be largely welcomed by individual volunteers. "Measures of success" for PEG grants in particular are still typically expressed in vague and/or quantity-based terms.

The two existing photography-related LPs are a case in point. I've gone through both making surface edits with a few fillings-out, and liaised with their author Michael Maggs at Commons about these and about the prospect for creating more LPs, especially given the upcoming WLM and the number of PEG applications that include a photographic component. I suggested, for example, that we might persuade him to go further, with such themes as compositional techniques. He may be open to this.

Only a few weeks ago while reviewing a PEG application I mentioned the photography LPs to the applicant; he reacted favourably and wanted to know whether there were arrangements to have them translated (into Romanian, in this case). This seems to me like an area in which the WMF might consider a more hands-on approach to translation—it's contained in size, suggests case-by-case triaging, and is potentially of large impact in the movement. It's the only time a LP has been linked in a PEG review, as far as I can see (not surprising given that this is an early stage of the endeavour).

I wonder whether there's a central noticeboard or coordination page where people might list the topics they think would be valuable to add (perhaps even employing a branched "offspring" or "sibling" article metaphor where it suits), those that are work in progress, and intentions to write. For example, I could offer one on audio interviewing and associated sound editing (given that Commons provides almost no advice on sound files, too)—this has already come up in one live PEG application; and I could write more on surveys and questionaires.

I see no promotion of the scheme, which could attract more WM expertise to contribute. Perhaps it's too early, but a loose timeline for progress in creation and quality improvement for the LPs might be useful. Grantmaking staff know more than anyone else which areas would benefit from online resources like this.

One design aspect I'd change is the tendency to repeat verbatim the opening in the summary box at the top. I think that box should act not as a repeat of the introduction but as a bird's eye of the key message-points. And although problem->solution is probably embedded in theory of change, I suggest that that formulat not be used universally in LPs.

Tony (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

PS from reability and aesthetic perspectives, I think the boxed information would be much better as plain roman, not italics. It's already visually highlighted. I don't know how to change that in the template. Tony (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tony1, thanks for reaching out. I agree with pretty much everything you suggest here. These are what I hear as the main points to hit:
  1. we need a central coordination space for pattern work. Kind of a small WikiProject, really: with some places to list of to-do's, wishlists and works-in-progress, as you say. And coordinating pattern translation should be a key focus of the project.
  2. we need to do more outreach to get more people creating patterns, and to get relevant patterns in front of people who are doing programmatic work. A multi-pronged approach is required, one that involves making grantees aware of the Library, and also surfacing the Library to people who aren't involved in grant-funded projects (or hoping to be). And if there are people who have specific expertise we want to capture, we should ask them directly to write a pattern.
  3. design changes need to be made, both at the level of individual patterns (to make the point of the summary field clearer, for instance), and to the Library itself. The visual design should be refreshed, and (I would add) the patterns need to be made easier to browse and find: there are currently categories, yes, but they aren't being used to organize patterns into groups.
Does that sound about right? I think we can move forward on all these fronts over the next couple of months. There have already been some updates planned, as part of the IdeaLab redesign (which project is a bit behind schedule) but your ping will help me make the case that this work should be prioritized. So thanks for that :) More talk soon... I'm going to set up a coordination page to get us started. It's about time I gave the LPL some TLC. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan, yes. I mentioned LPs to GAC in an email yesterday, suggesting that members' expertise—whether in editing directly or providing feedback on talkpages—would be greatly appreciated. I'll make time to acquaint myself with more LPs over the next few weeks, and may edit and comment as appropriate.

On the translation issue, it may be that several approaches at once could work, one of which could be an "as the need arises" for PEG and other WMF-funded projects. Another approach might be to identify, say, the photographic suite of LPs as having a potential large footprint and to embark on a systematic translation into languages by calling for suggestions with justification, as it were, on an LP noticeboard. So if there's a photo comp in Ukraine scheduled for next month, or an approved PEG WLM project in the Arab-speaking world, some planning and (dare I say it) funding allocation might be organised where necessary. One would have to be pretty sure of the quality and completion of the English-language version beforehand, though.<p I'm unused to the protocols on Meta, although I've seen urgently needed translations very patchily done for the last WMF/FDC election statements. Just how volunteer and paid professional translation might interface on Meta is question that has buzzed around my mind without resolution, for years! Tony (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

LP on framing survey questionsEdit

Jonathan, I've experimented with a click-and-show version of the current three examples in this LP.

Let me know your critical thoughts on this—too heavy and complicated? It couldn't be implemented on Meta until an equivalent template is produced. Tony (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tony1. Looks good, so I implemented it (turns out there's an analogous template here on Meta--only a few slight differences: color, borders). Do you know of any other patterns that might benefit from this "solution example" format? Thanks! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan, excellent. I'll tinker with the wordings a little. It will be good to get critical feedback on this click-and-show gradually technique, since it's probably the first time that anything like this has appeared on Meta. The light-blue hat backgrounds are ... ok, but I've asked Oren whether one can experiment with different colours (something like a very low-saturation yellow). Opening bullets showing as asterisks in the hatted material is the only technical thing. I've asked him about this. Tony (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Ping, for your info. Tony (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin rightsEdit

Hello, your temp rights granted by user:Jalexander-WMF, have expired. Are you using them and they should be extended, or should they be removed? Matanya (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Extended, please. I do a lot of gadget testing, so I need to be able to delete test pages. Thanks! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Matanya: Thanks, I'm happy to extend them if Jonathan needs them (I see you already did thanks!). @Jmorgan (WMF): I noted while I was checking your contribs that you have a bit over 400 deleted edits right now (the vast majority from test page deletions). If you are going to do that level of testing I would highly recommend you consider doing most of your gadget testing either on a local development wiki or on something like Test wiki or Meta BetaWiki (which is set up specifically too mimic meta as much as possible). While some testing may end up having to happen here we want to limit testing on active production wikis as much as possible since it can get in the way of the important activity going on around them and can clutter the logs tremendously on wikis like meta. Jalexander--WMF 23:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks,@Jalexander-WMF:. And I can see how my contributions are cluttering the deletion logs (yikes!). I wasn't aware of Meta BetaWiki, but that will suit my testing purposes well. If we do more major development on the Form Wizard, Jeph paul and I will try to work there as much as possible. There will be some more test pages that need to be made & deleted in the short term, but I'll try to keep it to a minimum. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to the CentralNotice-admins listEdit

Hi! This bulk email is to let you know about a mailing list used to communicate bug reports and new features in CentralNotice, and to facilitate conversations between the admins. This message is being sent to you because you have the privileges to use the CentralNotice admin interface.

If you use CentralNotice to post or modify notices, please consider joining the list by visiting this page and subscribing yourself:


Adam Wight (talk)

00:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising Tech,

Wikimedia Foundation

Thank you!Edit

Hi! I'm Ybsen Lucero from Wikimedia Venezuela!!! I just say Thank you!!! Your SQL querys from Quarry help me A LOT on the metrics of our chapter's projects. You really make my day. Once again: Thank You!!!

Thank you, Ybsen lucero for the very nice message :) I'm so glad to hear that Quarry is proving useful to you. Please don't hesitate to let Yuvipanda or me know if there are any features you can think of that would make Quarry even more useful. And let me or EGalvez (WMF) know if there are any other sample queries that you would like us to add to Quarry to make you evaluation work easier. Best, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disabled formWizardEdit


I don't know what formWizard is or what it's supposed to do, but it's broken and causing exceptions on every page. As such I've disabled it. The script has various references to a (global?) variable formsGadgetConfig that doesn't appear to be defined anywhere. –Krinkletalk 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Krinkle. I'm looking into this today. I'll double check things with you before re-enabling. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Krinkle. Jeph_paul has fixed the gadget and I've implemented the changes. The undefined exception doesn't appear for me anymore. Any other issues you need us to fix before I re-activate it as default? Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Gender_gap_grant_ideasEdit

Hello Jonathan! Please go ahead and rename these categories as needed-- I was just trying to get things started out. As long as the renamed categories are in the larger Category:Gender gap or its subcategories, they should be easy to find. Also, there's a new category over at en:Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedia and women's participation that might be useful for you. --Djembayz (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

GrantsBot: please fix its codeEdit

Hello. Despite having bot flag, the edits of your bot still appear on RecentChanges, so I'm guessing something on the bot's code is wrong. Can you please fix it when you have some time? Thank you. -- M\A 16:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a look. Thanks! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you :) Best regards, -- M\A 16:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Is bot running?Edit

Hi. I created this item, but the bot hasn't added it to Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire/All. Just checking that the bot hasn't missed it. Pengo (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Grant ideaEdit

I came up with an idea to help recruit more women editors, read your page on how to recruit volunteers and then hit a brick wall because I can't identify those groups on wikipedia who would be interested in participating. I am concerned that a grant that suggests dis-connecting 'feminism' from 'editing by women' would not be well-received by those who have identified themselves as women/feminists on Wikipedia. Here is my idea:

Grants:IdeaLab/Disconnect 'feminism' from editing by women

I'm only suggesting a small banner campaign aimed at those who read Wikipedia to be funded by the grant I am asking for. Thanks for any help.

Bfpage (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bfpage. Thanks for submitting an idea! I updated the headers so that this idea is easier for people to find. I think you raise some important points. To refine and expand your idea, I would suggest that over the next few weeks you continue to add details about the kind of project you want to run (assuming you want to run it) and what kind of human/monetary/tech/whatever resources you might need to run it. It would also be good to reach out to people on your home wiki (enwiki, right?), share the link with them and ask them to come by and give feedback. Women-relevant wikiprojects would be one place to start. Anyway, thanks for participating and I hope you continue to do so! Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Project to run? I don't want any money. Just some graphic artists to create some banner ads that appeal to women of all persuasions. I don't know how to run a project. I thought I was giving feedback. I am a just an editor, not a think tank. Since I only speak English and a little Haitian I could only reach out on the en wiki. The few places I posted were met with no response...LOL! I suspected as such. There isn't much motivation among the non-participants to expand the horizons of all human knowledge, at least it doesn't come up much in line at the supermarket.
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bfpage, I can see why you're frustrated. I'm sorry you haven't gotten the response you were looking for yet. I hope you don't give up! If you're interested in getting more advice from people who know something about planning and running projects (and even un-projects), you might want to propose on the Teahouse Pad that User:C.Koltzenburg set up yesterday. Best, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
HiUser:Bfpage, I left some comments and suggestions on the talk page. I hope it helps. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jmorgan (WMF)/Archives/1".