Meta:Babel

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, 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

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

Wikidata data access is here[edit]

Hey folks :)

I wanted to let you know that we enabled access to the data on Wikidata for you. This means you can now access data like the number of inhabitants of a city or get a link to a picture for a famous person and much more. You can access the data in two ways - via a parser function and via Lua. How to use it:

I hope this will help you do great things here. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. Good places to start are d:Wikidata:Meta-Wiki and d:Wikidata:Project chat.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This is awesome news. Thanks a lot to everyone who worked to make this happen! --Glaisher (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
We have waited for this feature for a long time, thanks for making it reality! --Vogone (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I join to the thank you.--Syum90 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
YAY! THANK YOU! --Ochilov (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
For some basic functionality, one might want to import d:Module:Wikidata to Module:Wikidata (LUA for those who don't want to write their own). --Jura1 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipetitions Proposal[edit]

I would love to see suggestions, feedback, and questions related to my proposed Wikimedia project, called [[1]]. 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)

Meta:Fair use versus Meta:Deletion policy[edit]

I see that a while ago a discussion on this board decided that fair use was not to be allowed on Meta, but the deletion policy doesn't mention "fair use" as a deletion reason at all. Is that an omission or by design (seeing as the deletion policy allows deletion discussions to be started for any reason)?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That's because it's easier to win the lottery JackPot than to get some policy updated or created here at Meta sadly. —MarcoAurelio 14:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I see. Would it be OK to add "fair use" to the first speedy deletion criterion for files?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it might be covered under WM:CSD#G5, but I'd not oppose adding it as a special reason for files and media. —MarcoAurelio 12:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
G5 is for copyright infringement, I don't think that would cover a (valid) fair use at all even if it violates policy (and I dunno about insufficiently free licenses either). I'd rather broaden I1 from "Noncommercial or by-permission-only" to cover any nonfree files in general.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see this page for a draft on a new deletion policy. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 17:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

ProcseeBot[edit]

Related to Meta also, but not only, see this proposal. --92.115.106.250 00:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Script validation[edit]

I noticed nice work done by CommonsMaintenanceBot at commons (see c:Commons:User scripts/reports and c:Commons:User scripts/users namespace/reports) and because Meta is now central place for a lot of user scripts, I would suggest to create conditions and to approve a similar task to be run here too. --92.115.106.250 00:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking for reports of users being logged in as someone else[edit]

Hi all,

we had reports of a serious authentication error that resulted in people being logged into the wrong account. We are trying to collect information about what happened, and how many users it might have happened to. If you have any knowledge of such a thing happening in the last few weeks, please tell us at one of these places:

You can find more details at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T126069. It looks like only a few users have been affected, but to be on the safe side, we are in the process of logging everyone out (which takes a while, so it might have happened to you this week, or it might happen in the next few days). Apologies for the inconvenience.

-- Tgr_(WMF) (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

we are in the process of logging everyone out (which takes a while... >> this was deemed unacceptably slow, so we are going to log out everyone at the same time. This is probably going to happen within a few hours, so that we can do it while most editors are asleep. I apologize for the disruption. Please report any unexpected problems (apart from having to log in again) at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124440 . --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

While most editors are asleep? Ths is a further sign of unacceptable americacentrism in the WMF. UTC is the time for everyone here, not some crazy western pacific stuff. Cant you comprehend, that the wikiverse is NOT circling around the US, but a global enterprise? Get used to it! Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Eating breakfast, whatever. Global edit totals are at the minimum around 06-07 UTC, as mentioned in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124440#2010709. --~~ 16:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there be possible in 2016 to merge duplicated babel categories?[edit]

For example:

Any possible actions? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) PS:These categories annoyed me for years. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The only way would be a bot, that changes zh-yue for yue in all Babel templates across the wikis. Or make the Babel extension identify zh-yue as synonym for yue. —MarcoAurelio 11:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to opt-out Meta-Wiki from the automatic approval clause of the bot policy[edit]

I propose to opt-out Meta from the automatic approval clause of the standard bot policy. This clause allows bot operations only for interwiki and double redirect fixing, something that global bots already do. I see no need to allow such an access here and since we also have an stablished procedure to approve bots. In fact, I'd propose to opt-out Meta entirely from the bot policy, but double redirect fixing is a good task and I welcome global bot operators to do that task. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 14:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose We don't need more bureaucracy at Meta-Wiki. Nemo 14:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support as proposer. This is not bureaucracy, it's community control of bots operating here. I'm sad that every attempt to get a bit of order here in Meta is rejected as "bureaucracy" when it is not. The chances of nowadays getting approval under this clause are extremelly rare too. —MarcoAurelio 15:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    Also, the above argument by Nemo is wrong. The lack of clear rules and policies at Meta is the reason for it's organizational failure and user-unfriendlyness. Doing whatever we want is funny, but it's not how a project succeeeds. We can't be the coordination project if we can't even coordinate ourselves on how to manage our content, our permissions, etc. —MarcoAurelio 15:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support In my opinion we are a community big enough to manage our own bots, I'm totally agree with MA, in fact I was thinking on proposing the same.--Syum90 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unnecessary, per Nemo. Global bots are approved on this wiki here, anyway, largely even by the very same users who control metawiki, and this proposal seems to me like an attempt to solve a non-existing problem. --Vogone (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to work on a new draft deletion policy[edit]

I'm working on a update of our old Meta:Deletion policy. I invite users interested to review and contribute to it at this page and its talk page. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 17:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)