Meta:Babel

This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:

You can comment here in any language.
This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.

Participate:

Wikipetitions Proposal

I would love to see suggestions, feedback, and questions related to my proposed Wikimedia project, called Wikipetitions. I would also like for anybody who is interested in the project to edit your name into the People Interested.

This would be a great start for better ways to interact with and communicate with our respective countries lawmakers(when/where permitted), and this kind of collaboration would help clarify the issue at hand!

Please, help my project get started and please help make it shine as a star/top Wiki project!— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyjds (talk)

My Unblock Request

My unblock request on the EN Wikipedia has been sitting for several days waiting for comment by the blocking administrator who hasn't responded. Anything you can do, I really want to get back to editing The Newspaper (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this page is only for Meta-related issues; to discuss about other projects please go to the Wikimedia Forum.--Syum90 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archives on Talk:Title blacklist

Hi, we are discussing on how to archive Talk:Title blacklist by a bot. Discussed about that until now are, in chronological order:

We are waiting for more opinions.--Syum90 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enable Wikilove?

In 2012, the Meta community decided not to enable the Wikilove extension. I and others are interested in seeing it enabled here. To assess the general level of community interest in having another discussion about possibly enabling it, I have added a section on the Wikilove page Pete had created.

If you support discussing this again, please sign there. No need to make arguments for or against yet; this is just a test of community readiness to have another discussion about this. Ijon (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a small discussion about it quite recently (last March) as well. See Meta:Babel/Archives/2016-03#Enable WikiLove here? --Glaisher (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have the arguments changed since or where comes the desire to re-discuss this from? --Vogone (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I thought the WikiLove extension was enabled on all Wikimedia wikis, but looking at <https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/InitialiseSettings.php.txt>, I guess I was thinking of the Thanks extension. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016 Article Lists by Country

I made a mistake at Template:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016 Article Lists by Country and I don't know how to fix .... Romanichthys Valsanicola

Your edits have been already reverted by Лорд Бъмбъри.--Syum90 (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link with wikidata

I got a little lost in the rules and I do not know why my link Le Figaro, Figaro works only in French and English? Thanks for your help. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Camulogene77 (talk) 14:17 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this page is only for Meta-related issues; to discuss about other projects please go to the Wikimedia Forum. To see what happen with the interwiki links go to the Wikidata item for that page. Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting translations

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T136014

Hi fellows, lately when I delete translation pages (Translations ns) the system automatically edits the main translatable page; this is very annoying for me because it takes a lot of time and does a lot of edits; if you delete 15 pages the system will edit the main translatable page 15 times, and taking a lot of time, while I would edit the main translatable page only once and very quickly. What do you think about that? Syum90 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, if you also delete the main translatable page using nuke the system recreates it.--Syum90 (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me why you find the current behavior annoying that if you delete a translation unit, the translation page is updated to reflect those changes. We previously had to do a null edit to any other translation unit after deleting a translation unit page to update the translation page (some people even used to copy and paste the source text after deleting) to work around this issue. It was only recently fixed in phab:T41415. I personally used to find the previous behavior extremely annoying. After deleting a translation unit, I had to navigate the translation page, click on the translate link and then after being navigated to Special:Translate, a unit which had already been translated had to be located. After doing that I had to add a space, remove it and then click save to do the null edit to remove the deleted content from the translation page. The current behavior is, IMO, the behavior that is saner in the current way in how Translate works. The same thing happens when you translate too; an edit to the translation unit causes an edit in the translation page. I'm not sure how we could avoid this in the current system if we have segments for translations. So (at least for me), it now takes less time when deleting a translation unit page; we only have to do a single click to do all the work that was done previously with several clicks and several page loads. But the fact that the translation page still gets created even if there is no translation unit for that language is a bug: it should get deleted. Also can you explain why you are using Nuke for deleting single translation pages? (I wonder whether the units get deleted when a translation page is deleted through Nuke; if it doesn't that should also be filed as a bug). I would also suggest to delete through the deletion interface for translatable pages if you have an i18n-ized page that needs to be deleted completely instead of deleting each unit separately which would, of course, take up a lot of time and make many unnecessary edits. Best, --Glaisher (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just filed phab:T136014. --Glaisher (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Glaisher, and thanks for your answer; yes, if I delete translation units by hand I have to do the process you have described, but I do it in very few seconds and I have to do only one edit while the new automatic process takes many times more time and does many edits if you delete many translation units. I use nuke extension because it deletes the main translatable page also, so when a vandal/newbie creates main translatable page by creating a wrong translation unit I can delete both pages (translation unit and main translatable page) by one click. Off course if I'm the only user who don't like the new system we will not return to the older one.--Syum90 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can try to delete through the deletion interface for translatable pages next time as suggested by you, but it is not possible to do this way when the main translatable page has been rightly created before, so if there are many rightly created translation units and then a vandal creates a lot of vandalic translation units the new system will take a lot of time and will do a lot of edits while doing it by hand I can delete all the translation units using nuke and then clean the main translatable page by one edit in very few seconds, many times faster than now. But, as I've mentioned before, if I'm the only user who don't like the new system we will not change it.--Syum90 (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use nuke for deleting single translation pages, obviously I use it when I have to delete several pages created by the same user or IP, as the tool was created for; don't you use nuke to delete translation pages?, do you mean that if a vandal creates several translatable pages do you delete them one by one instead of using nuke? Syum90 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I now understand the problem you are facing. I haven't noticed this as an issue probably because I don't use Nuke frequently (and also usually it's only a few units that have to be deleted in these cases). I'm not sure how we could cleanly integrate Nuke with Translate's deletion but this problem would be present for all deletion interfaces other than Special:PageTranslationDeletePage because currently the translation page edit is not done only if it was done through Translate's own delete job (which can only be triggered on that special page itself). One way to help with this would be adding checkboxes to the list at Special:PageTranslationDeletePage so that we can specifically choose which pages we want to delete (similar to Special:Nuke). We could also maybe make it sortable by timestamp of creation so that it would be easier when choosing these. Another option is to move the translation page update edit to almost the end of the request after all the deletions has been done so that one single edit can be done to the translation page even if several units were deleted. I'm not sure how technically feasible the latter option would be but if we get that done, I think this can be resolved. Would the first option work for you for now? I think it will be less fragile (hence easier to get implemented) technically. Regards, --Glaisher (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I trust in you very much :-) and I'm sure that you'll find a good solution for this now that you know what problems we find with the new system; in my opinion the solutions you have proposed now seem that can be useful to solve the issues. I started using nuke for deleting translations at MediaWiki.org when I accidentally discovered that I could delete the main translatable pages also, wich is very useful for me because I'm not a translationadmin there. What happens is that sometimes a vandal creates a lot of translation units and several main translatable pages and it is very easy for me to solve this using nuke. As I have said before I'm completely sure that you'll solve these issues in the best manner, and off course I'm completely at your service for all that you can need from me.--Syum90 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep using nuke preferably for the reasons exposed so the most important issues to solve are three: 1. the system have to do only one edit to update the translatable page; 2. the system doesn't have to recreate the main translatable page when deleted by nuke; 3. the process should be faster.
I know that it can be technically difficult to implement this improvements but it is important for me and other users I think. We can also try to implement the other changes you have proposed to improve the Special:PageTranslationDeletePage interface.--Syum90 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]