Meta:Babel/Archives/2014-03

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Translations for autoconfirmed

It seems clear that opening the possibility to translate banner texts for everyone is not a good idea. I suggest the obvious. --Pxos (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • You mean, disable the banner for anonymous users? Or don't link Special:Translate from a banner seen by hundreds millions users? :) Sounds obvious to me too, any sysop can make the adjustment to the banner by cloning the current one to a second without link and using the latter for unregistered users. --Nemo 19:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Anyone can add a translation, but only admins can approve ("publish"). You're supposed to proofread and set to "ready" when done. Don't see a problem with this system. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It won't help. Greek is still Greek to him. The rewiewing cycle does not work properly. The FuzzyBot is an idiot: the status "ready" will be changed automatically to "proofreading" when there is just one message that is not reviewed. --Pxos (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Greek may be Greek to him, but it was clearly written "stfu" in Latin script, and the other word was also pretty obviously out of place. Surely that was not marked "ready" before it was published. You can file a bug for that, but I think it is by design. Is the design flawed? Perhaps. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bugs are tedious and I don't want to file them. The Finnish translation got published as well while it was marked "proofreading". The reason: the status "ready" is not a stable status, the bot changes it whenever the translations get better or worse. As there are so few versions that are ready, the Jalex-man will publish translations that are 100% completed regardless of their status – otherwise almost nothing would get published and English would rule the seas. The idea of reviewers and publishers being different persons to the original translator is commendable but it just does not work as intended. --Pxos (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you guys for the catch and the fix on the greek banner. There is no doubt we need to be careful (and that the system is not great, though I haven't seen a perfect one yet). Pxos is right, I tend to lean towards getting 'something' out unless it looks obviously wrong and while I have stopped (and not published) a quite a lot of vandalized messages for the banner I obviously screwed up on the greek one. I'm open for suggestion to make it better, I want to make it as readable as possible (which usually means 'not english if at all possible') while still getting the word out to everyone (which we are required to do since it's a ToU discussion). Jalexander--WMF 20:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • As hopefully a partial fix (or at least making it better) I've removed the translation link from logged out users. Jalexander--WMF 23:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I often find vandalism in translations by anonymous or newly registered users. (example) So, I believe this proposal is very reasonable. --Meno25 (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Restricting translation work to autoconfirmed users only. Too often I've seen incorrect machine translations and even vandalism produced that might seem perfectly legitimate to someone not familiar with the language, produced by IP editors who either don't care and just spam the "suggested translation from Microsoft" button or who know how to manipulate the language to produce vandalism. They are still however free to suggest translations at Meta:Translation requests where their contributions can be scrutinized more closely and vetted by other native speakers. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, pages created in the translation namespace don't often show up in RecentChanges patrol, only the master copy of the page that the translation namespace affects show up as in RecentChanges. The end result is that they are sighted less often and avoid scrutiny overall, making life more difficult for translators or people just searching for hidden vandalism in general. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Creation of a Global Wikimedia Commons

Per PiRSquared17 request, I've moved back to the RfC main page some comments that looked to me as counterproductive to the discussion itself (mostly comments like votes, with no real arguments). Could please someone can act as neutral moderator in that page? In my view, allowing such types of comments will not help to adress the main issue behind it, only will make room to flamewars and to some believing that we are making a vote instead of a research for sollution. Many thanks, Lugusto 00:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe add a banner saying THIS IS NOT A VOTE! or something similar might get their attention, but I generally agree that you should not move other people's comments. Though I see you've complied with PiRSquared17's request, so I see the issue is mostly resolved. (If you worried some flamewars might spark due to the comments there, ask an administrator here to monitor it.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Flow on Meta

As part of the very gradual rollout of the mw:Flow extension – a new discussion and collaboration system, that is being developed with continual feedback from the communities – the page Talk:Flow/Developer test page has now been flow-enabled on this wiki. Next week, at the request of the project's maintainers, the page Programs talk:Evaluation portal/Learning modules will also become flow-enabled, to provide further testing of Flow in a real work-scenario.

As always, the Flow team encourages your suggestions and feedback; preferably at mw:Talk:Flow (which is flow-enabled) or en:Wikipedia Talk:Flow, to avoid too many fragmented discussions. Random sandbox testing can best be done at mw:Talk:Sandbox, or the developer test page on this project.

Please keep in mind that the software is still in very early stages; there are a lot of features to be added and changes to be made based on community feedback. Flow will best grow into a worthy replacement for talkpages if we continue to tell the team what we want out of an improved communication and collaboration system, as well as what we think others will want.

[Sorry for the day-late notice. There was a problem with parsoid yesterday, and I didn't want to send multiple people to a testing page with critical bugs. It's fixed now.] Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity (WMF). I've deleted the topics from that page and protected it. I have no idea why you or anyone on the Flow team felt it was appropriate to enable Flow here. Perhaps there was a community discussion I missed? If not, this seems completely out-of-line. I've filed bugzilla:61729 to properly disable Flow here until there's demonstrable community consensus for the Flow extension to be enabled here. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we really need a full discussion to enable Flow on one test page, since this isn't at all affecting anyone who doesn't go to that test page. I agree that we need to develop a consensus here before enabling Flow on any non-test pages. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Why would Meta-Wiki (a production wiki) be considered a testing ground? We have many test wikis, including an entire wiki devoted to only testing Flow. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all. We've talked with a number of people about these issues, and in the future will strive to give earlier notice to the wikitech:Deployments calendar, so that they can enter the usual communication streams (including TechNews). We're sorry that these plans weren't communicated earlier, as they should've been.

The requested flow-enabling of the Programs page will be delayed while some bugs are fixed and deployed (related to the History pages and Contribs/Watchlist/RC elements, specifically bugzilla:60559 and bugzilla:57860) - this will better enable folks such as RC patrollers who want to ignore Flow at the moment to do so with ease, whilst still allowing those who want to help trial and give feedback on Flow, in a real working environment, to do that too; much like the volunteering WikiProjects at English Wikipedia are currently doing.

We're trying to avoid some of the problems that new features releases have run into in the past, by releasing Flow only to a handful of pages over the next few months, per user request to trial the software, and getting feedback from actual usage that can help inform us what features/functionality to build next. Thanks, and sorry again for the late communication. On behalf of the Flow team, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have no objections to having Flow here, but please notify wikis when things like this are enabled. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I also object to Flow being enabled here. It is an incomplete project, work in progress, and there are other means of testing it than here. Gryllida 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Me too. I also object this behaviour from "the Flow team" to simply want to impose it on us; making not a proposal to the community but just "notices". As MZMcBride says, there is only an alleged request from some staffers to enable Flow on that one talk page nobody uses. It is totally not acceptable to enable extensions without discussion just because a small group of people wants to use it one page. --MF-W 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Chiming in to say I feel similarly. Killiondude (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
Re: the user requests: The organizers of Programs Evaluation had sent a request to Maryana by email. There's also a months older request from a few of the folks at WPMED. We've asked both of those groups to chime in here, if they are still interested in potentially helping to trial and improve Flow via usage and feedback.
Re: potential deployment: I (as a volunteer, in my personal capacity) generally understand the hesitations, from all angles. E.g. Whilst extensions are generally enabled wherever needed once they've passed security review and been requested, Flow is fairly unique because it interacts with things like RecentChanges, in a way that extensions like Extension:GuidedTour or Extension:BetaFeatures do not.
I also understand the strong reservations some of you have regarding Flow in general, and its usage anywhere, ever. Whether that arises from the too-rapid deployment of VE in some places last year, or the imperfect results of LQTs deployment years ago, or from various other potential reasons.
Flow is complicated - As Brion wrote in The Signpost a few months ago, VE[+Parsoid] is a "moonshot" project.[1] I.e. It's immensely complicated, and with incredible potential. - Flow is another moonshot project, and it requires smart participants with deep project-knowledge, such as many of the people here, to help guide it throughout its development, in order for it to grow into a product that we powerusers actively want in the future.
VE had problems, partially because it didn't get enough testing and feedback in its early stages. Flow is trying to avoid that issue, by seeking out pages and participants where it can be trialled in a real working environment. [Because: Not my wiki is a problem we all want to solve.] It's spreading out incredibly slowly; but having a diversity of small trialling groups, each with different needs, will help immensely.
The team wants to make it easy to ignore, for those editors who don't want to pay any attention to it yet, whilst still enabling the editors who do want to help steer Flow's early direction, to do so. I hope you'll support that. And again, my apologies for inadequate communication earlier. Much thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to see flow enable here on a single page. A lot of work has gone into developing flow and it would be good to at least test it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Quiddity: Thank you for this post. I appreciate it.
After reading your post, I think there's pretty wide common ground and a clear(er) path forward. As I see it:
  • for now, we'll keep Flow disabled here;
  • once the feature requests you mention (bugzilla:60559 and bugzilla:57860) are implemented:
    • we can re-discuss enabling Flow on a test page (though there's some general opposition to using a production wiki such as Meta-Wiki as a test site); and
    • if there are renewed and active on-wiki requests for enabling Flow, we can re-discuss enabling Flow on those pages.
I think this is a fairly reasonable path forward, though everyone should recognize that later discussions may result in Flow still being considered too alpha and unsuitable for use anywhere here. I believe that this determination is the Meta-Wiki community's prerogative.
Ultimately Flow will have to win people over and earn respect and trust, which will take some time, particularly given the history here; Flow can't simply impose itself, even—and perhaps especially—on an experimental or trial basis. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi MZMcBride (talk), Just confirming that I did request Flow for the learning modules talk page since it will host many trainings and I believe Flow would help to field questions as well as help other readers browse questions. Thank you for looking out! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I was asked to chime in, as I was one of the WP:MED people who expressed interest in testing Flow. I've learned that I can test Flow at mediawiki.org, which is nice. I also see that some people here don't like the idea of one test page being activated. I'm not certain why that is, but I can't say I have a strong opinion either way. Biosthmors (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I heard that Flow was enabled on meta and wanted to see if it would be a suitable replacement for my current strategy for tracking research work logs and discussion about research projects (e.g. RT:Wikipedia article creation and RT:Module storage performance). I was told about this conversation and came to add my "+1". I'd like to start using Flow on meta. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Halfak: Err, you probably mean Research talk:Wikipedia article creation and Research talk:Module storage performance. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Heh. Yes I did. Thanks. Apparently we have an alias for "R" --> "Research" (e.g. R:Wikipedia article creation) but not "RT". That's what I get for assuming. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

EGalvez: I saw your edits to Programs talk:Evaluation portal/Learning modules. Flow does not allow this type of discussion separation, as I understand it. Have you tried using Flow on mediawiki.org or a test wiki? I think it would make sense for you to play around Flow first before we discuss enabling it on certain pages here. It may not yet be what you want. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone interested in making a Spanish version of the Bylaws of two US-related chapters?

Is anyone interested in making Spanish versions of the bylaws of these United States-related chapters?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians

Hi, I'm looking for Lebanese Wikipedia contributors. If interested, Email: robertina.kouchian@gmail.com. -- The previous unsigned message was posted by 212.40.154.42 (contrributions), 12:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place for such announcement. Why not posting this on Wikipedia itself (most probably the Arabic version, you'll find many there). Also you do not say why you look for them, I think there's no reason for them to be interested by you, only an anonymous user not explicitating why your need them and without presenting yourself correctly. verdy_p (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC closer required

Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix#2014 RfC has now reached its closing date. Could an experienced administrator please assess the cross-community consensus on the proposal, taking into account the "Next steps" section that lists wikis which have participated in the preparatory clean-up effort. Thank you. — Scott talk 12:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken media link on strategywiki

See strategy:Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan Summary/Increase Reach Lugusto 21:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The file just doesn't exist locally or on Commons. What is the problem? And how is this related to Meta (Babel)? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, strategy wiki is locked, a logical place where to discuss fixes for it is its "parent wiki" Meta. That page can't have a red link, I thought I had already fixed it. I made a redirect on Commons, something even closer may still be found. --Nemo 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)