Rursus
Welcome to Meta!
editHello Rursus, and 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 Meta:Metapub (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!
--Herby talk thyme 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- (Cleaning away all languages, except the de facto interlingua). Thank you Herby! I'll read them. rursus 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Your question
editHi Rursus - thanks for your question. To answer it, the proposed committees are not intended to be go-betweens between the Foundation Board and the projects. In fact, once the Board has set them up, it shouldn't really have any further involvement with them. The problem that they are intended to resolve is the fact that on the largest projects, especially enwiki, discussion of any controversial policy change inevitably attract enough attention from people arguing both sides that the threshold of "consensus" is impossible to reach. Even if somebody looks and sees that a proposal is running at about ~60% support and decides that that's consensus, somebody else will revert saying that it's not something that everybody can agree to live with. I'm personally watching the debate about how to implement flagged revisions with great interest, because it seems likely to me that, despite the fact that a lot of people have been trumpeting this development as the way to address many problems for quite a while, the community won't be able to achieve consensus on any one implementation. This problem (with consensus-based policy development in general, not flagged revisions in particular) is expanded on by former enwiki user Doc glasgow in his retirement statement here.
The committees are intended to make sure that, unlike now, there is somebody with the authority to make policy changes. Most details of the committees - their specific mandates, compositions, processes, etc. - are best fleshed out at the community level. But I believe that the situation with policy development has become sufficiently dire that outside intervention is needed, and that the Foundation is the only entity with the authority to so-intervene. I hope this answers your question - let me know if you'd like further elaboration. Sarcasticidealist 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open
editHi there,
You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.
The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.
Over-qualified CSS selectors
editMy apologies that this message is just available in English.
Over-qualified CSS selectors of portals in Wikimedia skins have been changed. div#p-personal, div#p-navigation, div#p-interaction, div#p-tb, div#p-lang, div#p-namespaces or div#p-variants are now all removed of the div qualifier, as in for example it is #p-personal, #p-navigation …. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. Your gadgets or user styles seem to use them and you will have to update them. You can read more in phab:T252467. Johan (WMF) through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)