From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Babel)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 ← 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:
  • 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.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Abuse Filter Request[edit]

This I think is a very common issue, the {{delete}} tags are regularly removed by the page creator or being altered in some manner. We had to watch list every page we slap a tag on. Is there anyway to create a AF to abuse-filter disallow the page author to remove {{delete}} tags? My homewiki has one and it eases the load of patrollers considerably with the peace of mind that the tag is sticky. Any ideas? --Cohaf (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think our AF expert here is @MusikAnimal so I'm mentioning him here :) —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Special:Abusefilter/193 & Special:Abuselog/193 imported from zhWP and will just report on local edits (at this point). Picking up all language variations of "delete" will be an achievement, though if we are only concerned with those who remove those that meta operators add, and they are predominantly English language tags, that becomes easier. I am sure that it will need some customisation, however, it is here parked, and ready to tick over.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess the filter is zhwiki AF16? Yes, thanks for importation, I guess for now our regular delete tag such as {{delete|spam}} and etc will be enough, I don't think all languages can be feasible but if it could, it will be something I am very pleased and thankful for.--Cohaf (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
5 days on the filter is working quite well, just an interesting observation, most of the tags removed are those I slapped. --Cohaf (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi. Sorry but Special:PrefixIndex/Meta:Sandbox/ is just nonsense. We don't need one sandbox per language. The header can certainly appear in the different languages though. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Ditto. Obvious Redundancy.--Cohaf (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

When you're right, you're right. And if I choose "français" from the menu above, it doesn't even show the translated header template. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Yep, so much value in that proposition. Reduce to the one, and create redirects from name variations if necessary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay so let's just work on make the heading translatable (@Base and Kaganer?) and get rid of Meta:Sandbox/$lang. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

See Meta_talk:Sandbox#Translation and Meta_talk:Sandbox#Shouldn't be translatable topics. I still do not understand what the idea was from User:Verdy_p. --Kaganer (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to contradict you but the header hown in Meta:Sandbox REALLY IS translated in the user language...
At least it was until someone removed the header using an incorrect version number in the reset link (and then someone else purged the history to erase what was modified incorrectly on this page but nothing has changed really; the header is there beause it links to the documentation which is translated too, so that users don't have to return to English only; note that there's a SINGLE editable sandbox, the same for all languages, whose result is shown on all "translated" versions using the translated header, so we don't need to purge hundreds of pages; ONLY the header is translated)...
And this has worked this way since several years, until someone quirked it to something that was NOT my intent as INCORRECTLY stated above by MarcoAurelio and Cohaf.
You've been confused by the fact that several years of history was purged on this page (so you've also forgotten the links explaining it; and your memory than fails to remember how it was long before you posted this new comment: lack of correct analysis). verdy_p (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
verdy_p I don't think I've said anywhere that you've done an incorrect job. We indeed need the header translated, but not the Meta:Sandbox page. I've just stopped the bot from adding the <translate> tags again and again, re-adding the page from translation every time. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted all Meta:Sandbox/$langcode pages. I suggest we move now on creating a translatable template, the same we do for other pages. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Lua Memory Limits on Incubator[edit]

Scrubbed - I've moved the query to [1] --RichardW57 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Page scope[edit]

What's Interwiki conflicts talking about? Is it discussing the impossibility of using Wikidata to map two articles in one wiki to one article in another (e.g. one Wikipedia might have an article on Orville Wright and an article on Wilbur Wright, and they can't easily link to en: because it has a single article on the en:Wright brothers), or is it talking about something totally different? I see the If your comment only relates to a single page bit atop this page on a page's talk page, but aside from a few small edits ten months ago, the interwiki conflicts page hasn't gotten any significant content edits in more than ten years: I doubt a note would get any attention. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on English Wikipedia about the reference desk[edit]

A request for comment is taking place on the English Wikipedia ([2]) that could result in the Wikipedia reference being moved to Wikianswers and Wikianswers being adopted and an official WMF wiki, please post further comments there. BrandonXLF (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I edited the section header to reflect the fact that the topic of the RfC is the reference desk, not references (which would be of interest for WikiCite). Nemo 08:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably worth adding to Wikimedia Forum  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorting Requests for comment[edit]

The open RFC section is a little messy because there is at the same time global ban requests, complaints about administrator abuse/local issues and propositions of cross-wiki guidelines/tech features/strategy...

I think we should split the section into 4 subsections:

  • Global ideas/suggestions
  • Indivudual blocks/unblocks/issues
  • Local/language-wide complaints
  • Cross-language complaints

What do you think ? --CreativeC (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It has never specifically been a concern, or one particularly addressed. If there is to be an grouping, then it would be useful to have that same grouping applied to any categorisation. I doubt that many really mind.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The entirety of meta RFC is a mess. Sorry, User:MarcoAurelio but in my opinion the automatic sorting made it worse (though it was bad already). --Rschen7754 05:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree the open RfC section could work better. If you find a better system that does not require much manual intervention, please be my guest. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: This is possible !

  • Apply type to currently open RfCs (with AWB ?)

--CreativeC (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with the system as is is that there is no way to tell from the watchlist when there was a new RFC. I check my watchlist every day, yet I didn't see the latest global ban discussion for several days. --Rschen7754 06:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Watching Category:Requests for comments (open) doesn't work? Something can be done with DynamicPageList.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: DPL is already used there. I think that for the closed RfCs section it works fine, but for the open RfCs I think DPL tends to move most recent editted pages to the top of the list. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
If someone is observing from their watchlist, it needs to be category watched. For DPL it has numbers on configuration options, look at sortmethod, using created or categoryadd as viable options.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I changed sortmethod to categoryadd on every lists of the page (open was to created, others to lastedit). What do you think about four subsections of open RfCs ?--CreativeC (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate protection message[edit]

The Main page's protection message simultaneously displays the expected message

"This page is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it."

and also the contradictory message

"Note: This page has been protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. The latest log entry is provided below for reference:"

Don't have sysop or other related permissions here, but was wondering if someone could take a look at this? Leaderboard (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: can you provide the link you are using (copy the url) that gives you this message? What language is your interface set to? Are you using the desktop site or a mobile view? — xaosflux Talk 18:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
He provided more details at phab:T213846. Regards --Schniggendiller 21:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems related to the translations. Load the main page with uselang=qqx from an IP login, and you will see.

(viewsource-title: Main Page)
(backlinksubtitle: Main Page)
(permissionserrorstext-withaction: 2, (action-edit))

(semiprotectedpagewarning: (Translations:)?Main Page(\/.*)? <noedit|autoconfirmed|errmsg=Semiprotectedpagewarning>, Main Page)
(protectedpagetext: editprotected, edit) ...

I don't think that we should overly fuss it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: @Schniggendiller: @Xaosflux: The two issues (what I've described and what Phabricator says) are separate. The problem I'm referring to here is regarding contradictory error messages and not translations (though it happens only for en-US). Leaderboard (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: It is basically the same issue, you are just viewing it from different perspective due how it is being seen in different languages through the old system with included components. We need to move the main page into translation system. We probably need to get it rebuilt in Main page-new.
main page

 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)