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.

Padlock overhaul[edit]

Since late 2018, English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and some other Wikimedia projects no longer use old ​File:Padlock-COLOR.svg​ padlocks. The new design is intended to be informative, simple and up-to-date. c:Category:Page Protection Padlock Redesign (2018) shows all new icons by their color.

Meta still uses old padlocks. Since they have been created in 2007, they represent a somehow old design. Also, they aren't informative for new users. Another problem is that all padlocks on Meta currently link to English Wikipedia's protection policy, which uses the new padlock design. I suggest we change all the padlocks. Since Meta is a multilingual project, I suggest we use symbol-based padlocks instead of letter-based ones. I have provided a list of suggestions in the table below:

Type Old New Alternatives
Semi- Padlock-silver.svg Semi-protection-shackle.svg Semi-protection-shackle-dual-color.svg
Extended Padlock-blue.svg Extended-protection-shackle-check-mark.svg
Create Padlock-skyblue.svg Create-protection-shackle.svg
Move Padlock-olive.svg Move-protection-shackle.svg
Upload Padlock-purple.svg Upload-protection-shackle.svg
Pending Padlock-silver-light.svg Pending-protection-shackle-double-ticks.svg Pending-protection-shackle.svg
Template- Padlock-pink.svg Template-protection-shackle-brackets.svg Template-protection-shackle-brace.svgTemplate-protection-shackle-brackets 2.svgTemplate-protection-shackle-picture-1.svg
Permanently Interface-protection-shackle-keyhole.svg
Full Padlock.svg Full-protection-shackle-block.svg Full-protection-shackle-double.svgFull-protection-shackle-keyhole.svg
Office Padlock-black.svg Office-protection-shackle-WMFlogo.svg
Cascade Padlock-turquoise.svg Cascade-protection-shackle.svg Cascade-protection-shackle-double-chain-link.svg

I can conduct the change if no oppose rises within one or two weeks. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 15:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmad252: can you point to some examples of these in use? I just checked 10 semi-random pages from Special:ProtectedPages and don't see these being used at all. Also meta-wiki does not have all those levels, and does have other levels. — xaosflux Talk 16:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
One lock is enough. This is not English Wikipedia nor Commons. Stryn (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux and Stryn: Yes, I see. Although Meta doesn't have all of them, Module:Protection banner/config does. Removing them from the module shouldn't be difficult, but I think they may become useful in the future. This change won't effect a lot of pages, as Module:Protection banner is only used in less than 250 pages, and all those pages are templates/modules. This means that only >250 pages currently have a padlock, so the change is, in my opinion, fairly uncontroversial. The purpose of this proposal is mainly changing the fully-protected padlock, but I think changing them all is a better idea. Of course, we can remove the additional padlocks from the module and change only one or two padlocks. Ahmadtalk 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Even as an experienced user, I find the new padlocks much more helpful. I support this change. ~riley (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The symbols make no sense at all, and the colours are deeper so the blues and greens look nearly identical on some screens. They are substantially less informative and are probably the worst design choice has made in a while. Given it's not a huge deal, but the new ones really are hideous as icons go. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why are they "less informative"? I mean, what can we understand a green padlock, and what is the difference between a green and a purple padlock? Can you guess what they mean if you have never been active in Wikimedia projects before? Ahmadtalk 16:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I edit at night because I work in the day. Like many editors, I have my computer set to night mode so I can go to bed at some point. This is a common setting on most devices used to access the internet these days. I can't tell a difference between create, move, and cascade protections, and extended looks very close. Pending and semi-protection also look identical. To the significant portion of the editing population that has a day job and edits when they get off of work, substantially less information is conveyed if they use the settings that are recommended for being on a computer at night. This is only a problem with the new ones, not with the old ones. The weird symbols convey no meaning and the only one I'd be able to guess is upload protection. The rest are just random symbols that don't appear to have any relationship to what the protection is. So yes: the new ones aren't really compatible with the night modes that are common on new computers these days, making them less informative. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh. The overhaul didn't really do anything and the old version looks nicer. The new versions are ugly and despite the claim during the implementation, don't convey any additional information unless you already know what they mean. Oppose as not needed on meta and in addition to being ugly. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I think that we only use semi- and full, so 1) I don't think it matters either way, they are indicators only; 2) that the change makes little difference to what happens here. That two wikis have moved is neither here nor there and many wikis use the old schema. That said, I am okay about updating the two templates that we use; though I do not wish to see a further implementation of a more convoluted scheme. KISS principle works here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    Further comment: Both modules are fully protected so only admins will making any changes. Ping to importer and protecter ... @MarcoAurelio:  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: Please see my comment above. I listed all the padlocks, beacuse they are included in the module. Changing them will not affect anything now, but if we add a, say, extended-protection level in the future, the padlock will be of the type I've suggested above. In fact, the only visible changes are full and semi-protection padlocks. Ahmadtalk 16:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In my course as an admin on Meta, I have never seen or used an template (for the padlocks and others) -- do we really use it - or put it other way, do we really need it? — regards, Revi 01:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    @-revi: I don't think we really need them at all, and it looks like the only place they are really in use at all is via templates with documentation pages called by another template, that calls a module, that calls another module (Module:Protection banner), that calls the lock template, that then uses these icons. That being said, I don't really have any problems with changing the icon file. — xaosflux Talk 03:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I personally hate the newer version but not much a diff as per -revi, I also seldom see this (I can't imagine semi protect a talkpage and then add the padlock logo - way go against DENY or etc), so no harm just changing. Just a note per above comments that if ever we need to do ECP here, which is really a stretch, then E cannot be sufficient. This may need to take into consideration. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Pedophiles and Holocaust denialists[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Global bans is the policy and it is not subject limited.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I ask for a resolution that grooming pedophiles and Holocaust denialists receive a lifetime Foundation Ban. In case you wonder, WMF will be the jury, judge and executioner, such bans are not supposed to be voted for or against at meta. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Not certain that this is particularly pertinent to this page for a resolution as you desire. Suggest that you discuss with WMF's Trust and Safety team.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
That and I am pretty certain the former is already custom and practice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This issue doesn't particularly pertain to meta alone, can we discuss in Wikimedia Forum for wider reach and relevance? And yes, discussion with T&S / WMF will be better for these types of issues, maybe a RFC if needed. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I saw that for pedophiles there is a reporting e-mail at WMF. So, that's already covered and does not need an extra RFC. About Holocaust denialists, I have written to the WMF legal department and I'm waiting for their answer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The definition of holocaust denier is a contested one, and unless such a user is globally disruptive about this topic I don't think there is a reason anyone other than local admins should be uandling it. Vermont (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment Comment This is a subset of talking about global bans, and your area of disgust is not excluded from that criteria of where the community can take action. Closed Closed the discussion as it is not singularly pertinent to Metawiki/Meta: namespace.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 fresh look at NOPROXIES and its relevance/misuse with VPNs[edit]

Talk:No_open_proxies#Welcome_to_2020 - new thread of discussion FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore[edit]

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Allow sysops to grant patroller without request on RFH?[edit]

  • I am seeing a trend on meta that sysops granting +patrol to users without user requests, like Krd to Geni, Tulsi Bhagat to ~riley as well as ~riley to several users. I had a conversation here with ~riley about this. I recalled the RFC that was held have something like the user should request on RFH, which is also being reflected on Meta:Patroller. Basic points against unilaterally granting was that it may be hard to hold a person accountable if it was granted w/o their request as well as forcing on a user.
  • For projects like commons, and elsewhere, sysops can grant patroller w/o formal request. Patroller isn't a great deal, and it is in fact one of the least dangerous right here. So shall we allow sysop discretion to grant this right (and I will then propose to add one line to the meta patroller page something along the lines of commons which rights can be asked per formal request or admin discretion).
  • This issue isn't that important but just an administrative issue to sort out. If by right sysops can grant patroller without formal request and I just read that RFC wrongly, do TROUT me and I will willingly accept it. Sorry if I seem to overstep and Best Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we speak about autopatroller, not patroller. I also don't see how the mentioned RFC addresses that. If I'm mistaken anywhere, please advise. --Krd 18:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Krd:According to this you granted patroller? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
That was a mistake. Sorry! Granting patroller without request IMO is not a good idea as it changes the look of the interface and can be surprising to the user. Autopatroller has no possible negative impact. --Krd 18:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I see. Will let more opine, thanks for your views. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Krd: When you say it was a mistake, do you mean you intended to grant autopatroller or patroller was intended, but a request should have been made? Just wondering if a right should be adjusted to correct. ~riley (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
My intention was to assign autopatrol, but now as it is granted as patroller, I think it is least disruptive to keep it so and not change it again. In any case more care shall be taken in future so that such mistake does not happen again. --Krd 19:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for opening this up for discussion. You have not read the RfC wrong, or Meta:Patrollers wrong. Your trouting of me was applicable and your conversation clarified the precendence that I interpreted when I was assigned patroller. ~riley (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment Comment To special:userrights view for admins/crats (via MediaWiki:Userrights-summary), I have added the text "Noting that patroller requires community request at Meta:RfH" as a little guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Great idea, this is a helpful resource! ~riley (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • While we are on this topic, should MassMessage senders not also require community request? MassMessage senders, unlike patrollers, are a big deal and has implications if misused. ~riley (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @~riley: In my view, MMS surely requires a request at RFH, yeah, I agree it's a big deal as it can be use to send MMS to every wiki, just like GR vs local rollback, MMS vs local MMS. Something aside, your Meta guide (although is in a draft now) is quite useful, thanks for the effort in writting the guide. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Good stalking, lol! Work in progress, but will be moved out of userspace and into mainspace once complete. I know Vermont plans to spend some time on it, feel free to add to it as well. ~riley (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Lol. I am just doing RC Patrol. Thanks for the invitation to add on. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Automatically display translated home page[edit]

Hi! I’ve requested admins to introduce an automatic translation of home page. Your reviews and your feedbacks are welcomed, in order to establish a really consensual wish. Face-smile.svgPols12 (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Admin handbook[edit]

Howdy all,

I have made a short info page on being an admin on Meta as it is a different approach than one would take on enwiki and commons. I have proposed that it become a guideline as it has been well received so far. Discussion is happening on it's talk page for feedback. ~riley (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I like it, but it should be moved into the project namespace if it is Meta-specific. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed it is meta-specific, I think I will BOLDly move it into meta namespace.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree that meta namespace is appropriate, but the move was pre-mature considering the name is actively up for discussion on it's talk page.. Was waiting to move once, not move twice. ~riley (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Apologies. Feel free to revert if needed. Sorry ~riley.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
That would involve another move silly :P. All good, just wasn't acting on Ajr's advice until there was more consensus on the name to avoid multiple moves. ~riley (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Noted, and sorry for the mess caused. Wasn't a good start of the day for me, my brain wasn't thinking straight. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)