Grants talk:APG/Archives/2014

Translation of the example proposal form

Hi!

(I hope I’m posting on the right venue, this space is getting a tiny bit complex these days…)

At WMFR we are going to translate the structure of the proposal form in French for our members to better understand the process. Since this can be of general interest, I’d rather have it done here on Meta using Translate.

Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Example/Proposal form was not significantly edited for the last 3 months ; would it be considered fairly definitive for the round? Any objection to have it marked for translation?

(Of course, there are many FDC templates included that ought to be translated as well ; I’ll follow up with Seb35 for that :-).

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Oh, should that have been rather posted to Grants:APG/FDC portal/Comments? Feel free to move it. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC) )

Hi Jean-Fred! There will probably be changes to the proposal form again between rounds (I'm not sure, I'll check with Katy). We are definitely getting closer to being ready for translation although some questions about the page naming have been brought up. Feel free to add your opinion there. Thank you! heather walls (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Fred, thanks for asking about this; we'd love to see the form translated! Now that 2013-2014 Round 1 has concluded, the FDC staff will be reviewing the feedback received on the most recent proposal form. I anticipate there will be some minor changes, as Heather suggested, before Round 2 begins (proposals due April 1). We'll be working on the form in the coming weeks and look forward to sharing the improved version. Cheers, KLove (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks heather & Katy for your answers. I do understand your constraints ; but please keep in mind that translations do take a lot of time and their availability is not, at least in my opinion, a "nice to have": it is a critical feature of the Wikimedia movement. Especially considering that FDC-related material is now of first importance within our movement, and that it is in their very nature to be addressed to a broad audience (cf. the large call for community review process). I would actually have expected multilingualism to be a built-in & foremost concern − just like, say, material like Tech/News or the Wikimedia blog. It is because it did not seem to be the case (and, to be honest, to my great disappointment) that volunteers like Seb35 and myself have taken upon ourselves to make it happen. Which is okay ; but I must say it *is* a bit disappointing when our efforts & enthusiasm, though appreciated (and thanks for that!), are often tempered by requests for delays (though of course I understand the reasons) and more generally, seem to be considered as “nice to have” when they are much more critical to me. Thanks for reading, Jean-Fred (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(poke Heatherawalls, KLove (WMF), Jean-Frédéric) I am very sorry for my tone, but I become very tired of waiting responses and any update about the possibility of activating properly the translation. I began speaking about translation of FDC pages in last October to be sure it will be ready for the 2013-14 R 2 and I got almost no response; with time the certainty became a hope and it is now becoming time-critical.

If you are afraid about the complexity of the translation, we can discuss it (e.g. for Grants:APG/Calendar/fr I wrote some explanations about the activation of the translation, it could be a basis to move forward -- although this template is quite automated and textual templates could be handled differently). If you are afraid about the possibility of outdated translations, the Translate extension is managing it quite correctly (the outdated parts of the text return to English). If you have very strong reasons not to authorise the proper activation of the translations, and although the FDC Annual Report (and many Wikimedians) said the language is an "issue" and a "key challenge" "not been satisfactorily resolved", please say it, and we will do wild unsynchronised translations.

Now the translation of the templates should begin shortly if we don’t want to have to translate in one single week both the walls of text of the proposals and the surrounding templates and environment and if we want to attract the translators in the FDC process. If it cannot begin shortly only a few proposals will be partly and badly translated, and in April the community will moan about proposals in English and probably the next annual report will still speak about "language issues" and "weak participation of the community" (on the 19 entities involved in one of the 4 rounds of the FDC process, 13 are incorporated in a country where English is not an official language, so 70% of the impacted entities must write and read in a non-official language).

Please just respond -- I’m a bit upset.

~ Seb35 [^_^] 11:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seb35, I understand your position and am glad to see your explanation. And I am sorry to hear you're a bit upset. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I can imagine it may seem as though you're waiting, without knowing what's going on and whether the FDC team is really committed to translation. How material is translated and how we can support that within what is a very tight timeline already has been the subject of much debate, but I would like to assure you that all of the FDC staff believe strongly in the importance of translation for our global movement. Let me explain a bit more about our process, and where we stand. After the FDC process closed on Jan 1, we began a rigorous review of the proposal form. While no major changes will take place on the form, I did receive many requests for small revisions which I believe will improve the process by streamlining conversations between entities and the FDC+FDC staff, potentially reducing the time and back and forth conversations during the busy review process. Many stakeholders have shared feedback and thoughts and questions, which need to be triangulated and discussed within the FDC staff group to ensure a high quality proposal. This process is intensive and requires multiple people to engage (FDC staff, plus Heather, our wiki designer). I apologize that this feels like it's taking too long. In the past we have had the proposal form available one month in advance, this time we will have it up by Feb 1. Proposals are due April 1. Does this work for your schedule? Please do continue to let me know if you have questions or comments. Warm regards, KLove (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi KLove (WMF). Many thanks for your extensive response! Given the relative complexity of setting correctly the translation framework and the required simplicity for maintenance purposes, I see now the main requirement was/is a proof-of-concept page, e.g. a fictional portal + proposal form + proposal. I’m sorry if my words were a bit harsh; even if I didn’t realized it, it was the main reason I began more and more to stress about the deadlines, particularly given I’m not an experienced translation administrator and given the translation of templates is not really standardized yet afaik. It was for this reason I set up the translation on the calendar -- to test a real translation of template.

Now I think the translation could be set up on some example pages (marked with some warnings), even if the forms change a bit (and forbid translations on this page apart in French for example) to test the whole system and so it will be ready for real translations when all will be ready, and so I don’t need the final forms and you could take more time to finalize them. In parallel, I propose to set up the translation on the glossary page (I created another glossary page which should be merged in the first), so that the translations can begin with these fundamental words: it is often difficult to find good and short translations, and this will serve as a basis for various "interface" elements, as the calendar where half of the words are or could be in the glossary.

I set up this translation on the glossary and these example pages, and I make sure they don’t appear in the categories to avoid interference with real entities/proposals. I will write some tips and best practices decuced from this experiment. The example pages could be deleted afterwards.

Feel free to raise the possible issues with this experiment and first translation of the glossary.

Warmly, ~ Seb35 [^_^] 18:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi agan, Seb35, I appreciate your response! Since I'm still new to the world of wiki-translations, it is helpful to understand some of your considerations and challenges. Would it be possible to speak, perhaps by Skype? I'd love to understand a bit more and ask some questions, etc. What do you think? Many thanks in advance! Warmly, KLove (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! For now I’m travelling for one week, but I would be happy to discuss by Skype - it would be easier than by exchanging message. Many thanks for the ready-to-translate of the form, perhaps Jean-Fred will mark it for translation, or I will do when I come back. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 10:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed :) − it‘s Done.

(don’t worry Seb35, I left you all the templates to translate ;-)

Jean-Fred (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Templates translation − roadmap

The example proposal form makes use of all the myriad of FDC templates like {{FDC proposal form/2/Table/1}} & so on, and quite a lot of English content livres there. This ought to be translated as well, but as these templates are used in many places, we must be careful of what we are doing, and will have to fix the template calls in many places.

(Thinking out loud) I can see two possible options :

1. Enabling Translate on the template {{FDC proposal form/2/Table/1}} & so

If called directly (like « {{FDC proposal form/2/Table/1|stuff}} ») these translated templates are transcluded broken. They must be called using {{TNT}}, which selects the language version matching the current page language. So for example, if I am on a /de page, the /de version of the template will be transcluded (if it exists). Conversely, this will have no effect if the calling page is not itself a translated version − English version will be translcluded.

For example, in Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimedia Hong Kong/Proposal form, we would change the call {{FDC proposal form/2/Table/1|legal name = Wikimedia Hong Kong}} to {{TNT|FDC proposal form/2/Table/1|legal name = Wikimedia Hong Kong}} (note the TNT), and the output will stay the very same as it is now.

This construct is especially useful for pages which will be possible get Translate enabled at some point (which would be very nice for FDC proposals I think ;)

2. Turning {{FDC proposal form/2/Table/1}} & so into Autotranslated templates.

These translated templates are called the usual way, but automagically display the version in the user language interface (this can be overriden using a lang=xx parameter if needed). There is thus no need to change existing templates call ; but then, if I visit Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimedia Hong Kong/Proposal form, as I am browsing Meta in French, then the template bits would be displayed in French (except if we change the call to force English, as explained). If Translate is to be enabled later on, I think it is a bit more cumbersome to use (I should check that at some point).

All right, done with the thinking out loud for now − I hope you get the idea of how we can push translation without breaking all FDC Meta pages ;)

There are still many unknows to me, like how to deal with how to translate content put in parameter to Translated templates. Overall, I am probably missing things here, so @Seb35: & I will probably ping Meta talk:Babylon as well for advice.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose both solutions for the tables: enable Translate anyway on the template (or on a /i18n subpage), and turn it into an autotranslated template (by calling a user langage sub-template like on Commons or with a built-in user language selection (second template in the linked page)), so that the user see the translated form in her/him user language. This would be retroactive on the previous rounds, but given it is only "meta-content" and not the actual content of the propositions, I guess it is desirable and it will in no way change the "archived" propositions.

For the translations of the parameters, only some strings should be translated: "Not applicable", "N/A", "Yes", "No". The figure format cannot be translated (e.g. 123,000.89 is in French 123 000,89) since {{formatnum:}} don’t accept a parameter of the language (contrary to {{#time:}}), but this is minor for now. To translate the some strings, a "glossary template" could be created (as I did on Template:APG/Calendar/i18n in fact).

PS: I’m supposed to travel, but I take some time to follow that :)

~ Seb35 [^_^] 12:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Qi button creation fail

The buttons to create the Qi and Impact report reports (like {{FDC progress report button/Q2}}) were broken since the namespace change: they create the report in the main namespace and not in the Grants Namespace.

I believe I fixed it − please check. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sure a number of things are broken since the page title changes :) thanks for pointing that out. heather walls (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lots of 'red' links on Grants:APG/Information

Garfield Byrd has distributed an announcement email to wikimedia-l that includes a link to Grants:APG/Information. On that page, the blue box at the top links to missing page Grants:APG/Process, and on the left hand column are nine redlinks. The links on the left might safely be removed, but the blue box needs to link to a real page. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it seems to be true and I am sick at the moment. Do you want to redirect Grants:APG/Information to the old main page until it is finished? Thanks for noticing! heather walls (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Name "APG"

I do not think that APG is a good name for this program. I would prefer words written out, and Annual Plan Grants are odd words to use because that does not define the scope of this. Where can I find existing discussion about the choice of this name? Does such discussion exist?

Without an understandable name it is hard to solicit comments. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Significant figures

Hello, the current template says, on the point of currency conversion: "Please use five decimal points."

This is confusing and could be clarified in two ways.

• It is not clear what 'decimal points' means - significant figures in estimating the exchange rate? Numbers after the decimal in the exchange rate? (Note that the A2K proposal assumed this meant numbers after the decimal in all currency values...)
• It is too many significant figures. Foreign exchanges can vary by a few % over the course of the drafting process, so 3 significant figures should suffice.

–SJ talk  15:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken header

At Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round2/Wikimedia Foundation/Proposal form, several red links etc. --Nemo 21:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nemo. We have fixed this by updating those templates. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 13:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Error in dates?

There seems to be an error in the dates of the "Public review and comment" Phase on Grants:APG/Information. In row "2013-2014 Round 1" as well as in row "2014-2015 Round 1" the date given os from "November 2 - October 31". Shouldn't this normally be "October 2 - October 31"? As this is a somewhat official page, I do not want to change the dates myself, though. --Mglaser (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. We'll make sure it's fixed. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 15:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Done

Impact report preloads

Hi,

I was a bit confused by the preloads of the impact report: there is both Grants:APG/Impact report form preload/2 and Grants:APG/Impact report form preload/1. /2 is the one that gets preloaded (and is the most recent one), but /1 is marked as « current version ».

I went ahead and marked /1 as historical − please revoke if that is inaccurate.

(poke Katy and Winifred)

Jean-Fred (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 22:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Some changes

As we are updating documents for this round, I also made some changes to this page:

1. I added a link to the advisory group's work (not in this namespace) at the bottom of this page
2. I added a button that takes you directly to the APG proposals. Yes, I know it is included in the calendar template, but several people have come up to me indicating these are "impossible to find". I also like the button for aesthetic reasons
3. I made some changes to the descriptions and font sizes at the top of the page so that they are more likely to render at similar heights in most browsers: I think this makes it a little prettier and easier to view
4. I made some changes to the calendar itself, which are summarized on the discussion page of the calendar

Cheers, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This applies to the Grants:APG/Information page. Didn't realize I was being redirected to the main comments section. Cheers, Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team) talk 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Revisions during comment period

Hi Winifred Olliff (FDC Support Team), over at Individual Engagement Grants we allow proposers to make changes in response to comments during the community comment phase. I feel that proposals generally improve in quality as a result of these changes. I am wondering what the thinking is behind the requirement that APG proposers must not revise their proposals during the October comment period. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 18:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Grants:APG outdated

"will be submitted by eligible organizations by 1 October 2014!" --Nemo 07:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing template

I hope it's ok: Template:2014-2015 round2. --Aubrey (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding data guidelines?

I appreciate the reduced reporting requirements for next year - that seems much less duplicative of the work that already goes into annual reports!

Have people considered detailed guidelines on how and where to share data about programs? Making machine-readable data about programs highly visible — in a continuous stream, where appropriate — has many advantages. It can provide a feedback loop while programs are in progress, and allows for others to analyse and support the work. It is also something that benefits from attention at the start of a project; once it is over this may no longer be possible.

Providing structured data access also doesn't seem to be a standard part of current annual reports, so guidance would be helpful. (This is true of the WMF also: while the Foundation has a basic dashboard that offers some reader and editor data, that does not provide structured data for many core projects; including core priorities such as speed, quality and participation by underrepresented groups.) –SJ talk  16:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I learned about Gangadevi and her book Madura Vijayam - Madurai Sultanate page ! Wikipedia/Media can make the book available ?

what kind off subject can be made after these words?