Meta:Babel
| ← Index of discussion pages | Babel | archives (latest) → |
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
|
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
[edit]
Dear community members,
Greetings from the EWOC Newsletter team and the education team at Wikimedia Foundation. We are very excited to share that we on tenth years of Education Newsletter (This Month in Education) invite you to join us by subscribing to the newsletter on your talk page or by sharing your activities in the upcoming newsletters. The Wikimedia Education newsletter is a monthly newsletter that collects articles written by community members using Wikimedia projects in education around the world, and it is published by the EWOC Newsletter team in collaboration with the Education team. These stories can bring you new ideas to try, valuable insights about the success and challenges of our community members in running education programs in their context.
If your affiliate/language project is developing its own education initiatives, please remember to take advantage of this newsletter to publish your stories with the wider movement that shares your passion for education. You can submit newsletter articles in your own language or submit bilingual articles for the education newsletter. For the month of January the deadline to submit articles is on the 20th January. We look forward to reading your stories.
Older versions of this newsletter can be found in the complete archive.
More information about the newsletter can be found at Education/Newsletter/About.
For more information, please contact spatnaik
wikimedia.org.
Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting is closed - local voting statistics[edit]
Greetings,
The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) came to a close on 21 March 2022. Over 2300 Wikimedians voted across different regions of our movement. Thank you to everyone who participated in this process! The scrutinizing group is now reviewing the vote for accuracy, so please allow up to two weeks from the close of voting for them to finish their work.
The final results from the voting process will be announced here, along with the relevant statistics and a summary of comments as soon as they are available. Please check out the voter information page to learn about the next steps. You can comment on the project talk page on Meta-wiki in any language. You may also contact the UCoC project team by email: ucocprojectwikimedia.org
Best regards,
Movement Strategy and Governance
Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Users that qualified to vote by Meta-wiki edits ranked 4th overall among eligible voters. See more statistics. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- home wiki voters
- +most edited voters
- +qualifying voters
Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Results from the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote published
The Trust and Safety Policy team published the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote. The vote ended 21 March 2022. See the results and read more on Meta-wiki.
Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xeno (WMF) @User:SNg (WMF) Are the results final now? I ask because someone reverted my edits. Does the world really have to wait for more final results, now 3 weeks after the vote ended? Also the 2 templates below need to be updated in "/en" subpage. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Taylor 49: The next steps are described in the message posted by SNg (WMF): Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement. In particular, "The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement." Feel free to propose any text changes you think are required on the talk pages and I can flag to the project team. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @User:MarcoAurelio @Xeno (WMF) The information was and still partially is confusing. You mean that the board can change the document now, despite the YES-verdict? This is new to me. But the community verdict is presumably final and it is a YES. The template "Universal Code of Conduct/Navbox" needs to be updated in "/en" subpage. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure why I am being summoned here as I am just a volunteer without any involvement in this project (except for a translation or two here and there) and I hope that Xeno (WMF) can be of better assistance. In any case, I think that the Board, as the ultimate corporate decision-making authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, is legally able to either go forward with the ratification as they announced they'd do, make a U-turn and decide not to (not sure if they'd be estopped from doing that considering their previous statement) or make amendments to both texts based on the input provided during the vote. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Further to the above: My reading of [a] threshold of above 50% support of participating users will be needed to move on to Board of Trustees ratification is that the Board will only take the document into consideration if the community vote got 50%+ of approval; not that the guidelines get automatically approved. Considering the significant opposition and that an approval of 57% would not be enough to change a comma of a policy in most projects I think it'd be good for the BoT to, at least, examine the community feedback provided both on wiki and in the comment box. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure why I am being summoned here as I am just a volunteer without any involvement in this project (except for a translation or two here and there) and I hope that Xeno (WMF) can be of better assistance. In any case, I think that the Board, as the ultimate corporate decision-making authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, is legally able to either go forward with the ratification as they announced they'd do, make a U-turn and decide not to (not sure if they'd be estopped from doing that considering their previous statement) or make amendments to both texts based on the input provided during the vote. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @User:MarcoAurelio @Xeno (WMF) The information was and still partially is confusing. You mean that the board can change the document now, despite the YES-verdict? This is new to me. But the community verdict is presumably final and it is a YES. The template "Universal Code of Conduct/Navbox" needs to be updated in "/en" subpage. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
[edit]
Hello!
I don’t know what to do with Help:Navigational template: do you think it may be useful? If so, should we move it in antother namespace?
-- Pols12 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- To me, it looks like Patrick was trying to separate this section from Help:Template. I think it can be helpful if someone is willing to update and rewrite it. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've linked it to Wikidata for future tracing. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 18:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Как переводить таблицу[edit]
На странице Wiktionary/ru#Список Викисловарей есть табличка, как её перевести?--Блинов Рюрик Петрович (talk + contributions) 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- А никак на данный момент. Не размечены заголовки столбцов таблицы для перевода. Если это в теории сделать можно, обратитесь к кому-нибудь из админов перевода. Iluvatar (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Обратился к @Base.--91.237.110.76 07:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Add flow-create-board to Global renamer[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- This was withdrawn as unactionable locally, cross-project this is being followed up in phab:T150572. — xaosflux Talk 19:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Currently user could not move a flow page due to lack of flow-create-board. As some sites allow user to enable flow on their talkpage, this may cause some problem when they get renamed (i.e. User talk:Wsmafil on zhwiki): so I propose to add flow-create-board permission to global-renamer group. Although this group has global affect, it is in fact a local group, so I post my proposal here. Thanks! Stang 15:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- It has been many years since Flow/Structured Discussions were released, so did countless renames. I think we should list users and pages impacted by this problem. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 15:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Support Seems reasonable and non-controversial. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose scope creep, just fix the global rename routine to not care about this the same way it overrides other things. — xaosflux Talk 23:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also, as @Stang points out, this is a local group, so it won't make this local permission to anything on a project like zhwiki. What were you expecting this to do Stang? — xaosflux Talk 23:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh my, I really forgot this point! Close as withdrawn as this approach will not solve this problem. (A quick search tells me this has been raised for a long time phab:T150572 and maybe could not simply solved) Stang 23:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also, as @Stang points out, this is a local group, so it won't make this local permission to anything on a project like zhwiki. What were you expecting this to do Stang? — xaosflux Talk 23:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Support Seems reasonable and non-controversial. 
Oppose scope creep, just fix the global rename routine to not care about this the same way it overrides other things. — - The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Is anyone willing to post to Phabricator on my behalf?[edit]
I was instructed on another project to submit something to Phabricator, but do not have email enabled. This is now the second time this has been an issue. Is anyone willing to post there on my behalf?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Epiphyllumlover looks like your homewiki is enwiki, post at w:en:WP:VPT and someone will likely help you out there. — xaosflux Talk 19:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Ready for translation: Education Newsletter April 2022[edit]
April 2022 education newsletter released for translation. Please help our readers to read education newsletter in their native language. The latest education newsletter is ready for translation: here Newsletter headlines link for translation: here (please translate by 23 of April) Individual articles for translation: Category:Education/Newsletter/April 2022. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC) j
Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]
Hello!
Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?
Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 29 April 2022 at 13:00 UTC and 18:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 88045453898. Dial by your location.
Agenda
- Update on the recent developments
- Questions and answers, discussion
Format
The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.
We can answer questions asked in English, French, Italian, and Polish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to [email protected].
At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.
We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
How do I mark another account as an alternative account?[edit]
On Wikipedia and Wikinews, you can mark another account as a former account by using a template. However, I cannot find a template here. What should I do? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- @CheatCodes4ever: Be bold and create one yourself, or copy the template's source code and then use it as if you were using a normal template. Both require basic knowledge about templates and wikitext. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why not use Template:User alternative account? Stryn (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- From the thread opener's consideration I guess they want to cleanstart by register a new account? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Meta:Requests for comment/Allow de-sysop proposal of active adminships[edit]
Really, I don't hope if this should be successful or not, but currently there's a bit urgent that we need a place to discuss so, due to some global RFCs involve Meta adminships. Do any of our community members interested in it? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit Warring on Wikipedia[edit]
First off, my apologies if this is the wrong forum in which to bring up this question. If not, please point me to the right place to do so. I am just looking for some advice here. Two days ago, I made a few edits to some closely related pages on Wikipedia. However, they were very quickly reverted by a user who has made most of the past edits to each of those pages. They did not offer much in the way of an explanation as to why, only stating in the edit summary that they were reverting the page to its "last good version" (which seems to be the defense that they use to roll back pretty much all changes made to these articles). As such, I reinstated my changes, making sure to spell out even more carefully the reasoning behind my edits, and clearly state why I believed they were both relevant and necessary once again. Within minutes, the same user reversed those changes once again. At this point, I headed to the article's talk page, where I found that the only topic of discussion in the past centered around this very issue. A different editor faced the same situation, brought up the problem in the section I visited, and the user mentioned above responded with a short but negative message. I responded in this section, asking for people to share their opinions. Soon thereafter, another person offered their view and suggested a compromise solution which incorporated elements of my change as well as the original page, which was what the earlier user had been insisting on all along. They promptly went on to implement this compromise, which after some thought I agreed to as well. However, the editor I have been mentioning quickly reverted this edit as well. I also protested the undoing of some edits I had made at one of these pages which were irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and which nobody had ever vocally taken issue with. However, seemingly out of spite, the same member once again rolled back my other changes, this time with no explanation at all. It was at this point that this person left me a message on my talk page, accusing me of "edit warring" and threatening an immediate ban from editing. I sent back a notice to that user's talk page right away, explaining once more why I made the changes, and demanding their attention. When I did not receive a response for over 24 hours despite their speed in previously undoing my edits, I reinstated only the edits over which there was no controversy, keeping the rest of the page as they had left it, hoping for a swift resolution through dialogue on that article's talk page. Within minutes, those changes were undone as well, with the threat coming in the edit summary this time, but still with no reasoning given as to why it was done. I have refrained from completely reversing those reversions so far, as they are a far more experienced user than I am. However, I feel as though I have no other choice, and if they have an objection to the edits made by myself and others, they should be made to explain themselves and then discuss the issue later on through the talk page, rather than simply stonewalling the issue. Am I wrong to feel that my edits should be kept in place instead, at least until someone is able to raise a point as to what detriment they have caused, however flawed the logic in their reasoning? This is especially true because it is also the case that, insofar as a consensus exists, it is almost completely in favor of the changes that I have attempted to implement along with numerous other people, given that this person is the only one who did not support doing so. A Red Cherry (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- (For those who needs context, see Template:16TeamBracket-NHL Divisional@enwiki)
- @A Red Cherry: Well, some people can be a bit unfriendly, but always remember to assume good faith, even if the other(s) do(es)n't. Assuming they have a really good reason to do so, then try to follow my 2 cents: Stay cool, have a cup of tea and try other ways to resolve conflicts (en:WP:DRN, en:WP:ANI, etc.). Other than that, I'm afraid MetaWiki is generally not the place. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Editing news 2022 #1[edit]
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter
The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at the 20 Wikipedias that participated in the test. You will be able to turn it off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
Whatamidoing (WMF) 18:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
[edit]
A popular article writing competition CEE Spring (about Central and Eastern Europe; now with special subcategory about Esperanto) is happening on the English Wikipedia until the 31st May 2022. I warmly invite you to participate, write some article and win a valuable prize! If you have question, I will happily answer it on the competition page talk.
Also, for more wide outreach, I have just asked for a CentralNotice, which should appear also in this project. If you have a comment on the request, you are welcome to write it on the request page. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
SB[edit]
Since this redirect only seems to have two backlinks, I think it is appropriate to retarget it to Spam blacklist, though I would like to ask here first to avoid confusion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I initially thought this was a redirect to Spam blacklist. I think Spam blacklist seems more appropriate than the current page it redirects to. Hulged (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds non-controversial. A hatnote should be added too. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 12:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)