Meta:Babel
| ← Indice delle pagine di discussione | Babel | archivi (ultimo) → |
Questo è un forum di discussione generale per Meta (questa wiki). Prima di inserire un nuovo commento sei pregato di notare quanto segue:
|
- A proposito di Meta
- Pagine di discussione
- Pagine di richiesta
- Politiche e linee guida
- Informazioni e statistiche
- Categorie
- Pagine di aiuto
Partecipare:
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days. |
Indice
Page scope[modifica]
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[modifica]
A request for comment is taking place on the English Wikipedia ([1]) 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[modifica]
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)
- 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)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@MarcoAurelio: This is possible !
- We could add a type parameter in {{Rfc subpage}} and 4 associated categories
- Add Inputboxes at categories top (and remove MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Requests for comment because
editintro=does it andpreload=subst with the template):
- 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)
- If someone is observing from their watchlist, it needs to be category watched. For DPL it has numbers on configuration options, look at
- @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)
- Watching Category:Requests for comments (open) doesn't work? Something can be done with DynamicPageList. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 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[modifica]
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=qqxfrom an IP login, and you will see.(viewsource-title: Main Page) (backlinksubtitle: Main Page) (vector-jumptonavigation)(vector-jumptosearch) (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.
— billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Idea to add (supressredirect) to patrollers[modifica]
Hey all, in the course of patrolling, I often see cases of marginal G7, like that of the SE statements. Some can be moved to userspace but then there's a redirect that needs to be speedied. I'm wondering could patroller be granted that flag so as to help in patrolling. Open for community inputs. Much valued.--Cohaf (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- You can just leave them for an admin to move and to manage, it being one of the roles of admins. It isn't particularly the role of a patroller to be moving SE-related material. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst:. I understand it but I'm just wondering if it is possible to unbundle from admin as not only SE but other areas may also need it. --Cohaf (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
