From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 February 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Allow admins to add users to translation admins group[edit]

Hi. Could we allow admins to add users to the translation admins user group? This functionality is currently restricted to bureaucrats or own accounts only on Meta-Wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? TA requires a community vote at WM:RFA and the system is working just fine IMHO. I'd rather not amend the config again. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone asked me today about getting added to the group. I was hoping I could just add them myself, but for some reason we only allow self-changes or bureaucrats to add someone to this user group. It remains unclear to me why a separate translation admin user group is needed at all, but requiring an RFA for it seems even sillier. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Meh, our local crats haven't had any trouble keeping up with this. If we wanted to devolve an assignment function from crat to admin things like "uploaders" and "confirmed users" would be more sensible. These are also so rarely used that it's not really causing any backlogs. — xaosflux Talk 20:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There are currently only three local bureaucrats, I believe. Coincidentally, all three have usernames starting with the letter M. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
We dismissed Barras and appointed Matiia so we could conform the "M for Meta Bureaucrat Cabal", a.k.a "The Three Musketeers" (M for Musketeers too!) :-P —MarcoAurelio (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
So I'm hearing you have a chance assuming you can get 2/3 of ALL of them to endorse you! (where did that policy come from?) — xaosflux Talk 00:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like it just appeared one day. — xaosflux Talk 00:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
And before, it seems like there was no requirement for a discussion. I do remember back in the day when Meta had one crat for every two admins. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind leaving most of the userrights-related stuff to bureaucrats. Since translation adminship requires some sort of discussion, it should be fine to keep there. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why is a seven-day discussion needed? What's the specific concern? Are we worried people are going to go rogue and mark pages for translation? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure, honestly. Probably just something that was done initially and then continued. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I realize nobody wants to touch the user rights configuration again (myself included), but I do wonder whether it would make sense to have a "trusted user" group or similar and fold a lot of these individualized user groups into a larger, more general group. This user group could be viral instead of self-added or removed. Viral meaning users already in the group can add other users to the same group. This creates a chain or web of trust, in some ways.
In my ideal world, we'd just let all users do all of this. I think we should be as open as possible, just as we are with editing. Why should page translation be treated special? Or we could make anyone an administrator. But obviously that isn't going to happen anytime soon. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
"Touching" the config to move existing permissions between existing groups is pretty trivial, if the community wants a change there should be no great technical argument. — xaosflux Talk 02:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but I think there may be some change fatigue. I didn't mean to suggest that this was difficult from a technical perspective, I was referencing comments like MA's about preferring not to re-amend the configuration. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I recently standardized the Translate permissions WMF-wide (previously we had to do this for every wiki using Translate). I think the system works fine and there's no backlog currently. The discussion at RFA proved helpful in my experience, as it has helped to exclude some people asking for this without the knowledge on how to properly tag a page for translation, effectively breaking translatable pages. This is not to say that I do not trust my fellow administrators to handle this permission, but given the above I'm not sure if there's any need or it's worth the effort to do so. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Translation admins can easily break a lot of translation pages or unnecessarily create them etc. So I think it makes sense to only give it to users who know how to deal with it. --MF-W 17:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC) IMHO, "translators are not toys" which is also mentioned at Meta:Translate extension#In general when I read and translated the Chinese page in not long ago. It maybe a good option to have 1 week support consensus discussions from community users trusted to grant the TA tool by any local admins or crats. SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox link[edit]

Hello. Does anyone know how to enable the sandbox link (as on English Wikipedia)? Is it disabled here for a reason? Thanks in advance. Rehman 07:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I think you can do it under Meta:Sandbox section(i am not sure)Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Adithyak1997: the SandboxLink extension is disabled by default While anyone can create a /sandbox page, I don't think we should encourage it with a big red link on the top of everyone's page here on metawiki. You can create your own links with javascripting, as was done on enwiki at one time (see w:en:MediaWiki:Gadget-mySandbox.js). — xaosflux Talk 16:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Multi Colon Escape Error[edit]

I am facing an error with the template Template:User1. This template contains multi colon escape error which i could not correct. After correcting that error, i think many of the multi colon escape errors can be removed.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Like this? Stryn (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, i don't know the correct result that needs to be displayed. But now, the multi colon escape related to this template has gone. Thanks for helping.Adithyak1997 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)