Meta:Babel/Archives/2013-09

Project proposals

When creating a new project proposal, is one supposed to create a logo to go with it? And if so, does the logo go here or on Commons? Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, am I supposed to start an RFC on the proposal or not? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 01:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In order:

1. You can create a logo if you want to, but it's not necessary until the project is actually created.
2. I don't know. :-(
3. Most projects start with just an information page where people can express interest. If there is a lot of interest, you can start an RfC, but the result is still subject to Foundation approval, which may take a while.

Good luck! -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 11:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

2. To Commons, because 1. free content should always go there and 2. local file uploads on meta are restricted to uploaders and admins because of that, anyway. Vogone talk 13:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to create a logo, because it might not be used. After a project is accepted, there is a vote for the logo. See Logo selection procedure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Where can I translate "Wiki Loves Monuments" banner?

I notice that the Cantonese Wikipedia use English version of "Wiki Loves Monuments" banner, where can I translate to yue version? The suggestion of the yue tranlation would be "維基愛古蹟：影低古蹟，既幫到維基百科，又可以贏大獎！"--Romethus (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added the translation to Special:Translate. In the future, you can do this yourself. Note that only admins can publish CentralNotice translations, however, so I've done that for you. :) PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.--Romethus (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a Meta-Wiki analysis and overhaul

I have submitted a proposal for an Individual Engagement Grant called Rethinking Meta-Wiki. The principle is to hold a discussion about what Meta is used for and to come up with ideas on how we can make it better. For more information, please see the proposal and comment on its talk page. harej (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. If announcements like this weren't made here I, for one, would never find them. Killiondude (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Unified Wikimania Wiki

Hi. Just want to know why does each Wikimania need a separate wiki? Wouldn't it be much better/easier to have a unified Wikimania wiki? So that common tips, feedback, etc can be reused easily? It is also much neater in the mid- to distant-future, when many Wikimanias have already taken place. I see no strong reason to have separate wikis for these. Comments? Rehman 12:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Wikimania project domain is a now dead proposal that can be revived. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 06:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed this has been discussed several times (don't be annoyed if nobody replies, it happens with perennial proposals). Now that I think of it, last time there was some work on mw:Extension:ConventionExtension as part of GSoC, I don't understand its status though. --Nemo 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to cross-post this around with more detail. Hopefully this will bring in more people. Rehman 12:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-post with more detail:

Right now, we already have a dozen separate wikis for each past and future Wikimanias, and there's no doubt there'll be much more to come.

The idea here is to have a single Wikimania wiki (wikimania.wikimedia.org) for all conferences, instead of the current separate-wiki style (wikimania2012.wikimedia.org). This has been discussed at Wikimania project domain in 2011, but seem to quickly ran outta gas.

Key issues addressed:

• Q1: Organizers (alone) of a current conference needs to have absolute control over the conference wiki (aka being an admin).
• A1: Wikimania wikis does not run as normal projects. Hence, all organizers shall easily be given admin rights (and former organizers removed) as it becomes necessary. The cycle continues.

• Q2: What about archiving past wikis? What if we need to look back?
• A2: Except for key pages (such as the Main Page), all other pages of each project could be created under the respective year's subpage. For example, all 2012 conference's pages would be under: http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012/page/page/etc. Additionally if necessary, any vital page requiring archiving could also be edit protected (cascading style too, if possible).

Please respond at the existing Wikimania project domain proposal page. --Rehman 12:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Split translation group zh to zh-hans and zh-hant.

---

Hello everyone, I recently realized that on mate all the subgroups under zh have been closed. However, I suggest that we should close zh and open zh-hans and zh-hant instead because of the following reasons.

• We used to have all zh subgroups (i.e. zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-tw, zh-sg, zh-hant, zh-hans) and never completed neither one of these translations. As far as the translations on Meta are concerned, the differences between regional subgroups (i.e. zh-cn v.s. zh-sg, zh-tw v.s. zh-hk) are negligible.
• However, there are two writing systems in Chinese. Putting them altogether makes zh a mixture of simplified Chinese (zh-hans) and traditional Chinese (zh-hant). This may cause some troubles to our readers and make the page look bad. If we have zh-hans and zh-hant enabled, it will have readers who read either simplified or traditional Chinese.

-Mys_721tx(talk) 05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Moved from Meta talk:Babylon - Mys_721tx(talk) 21:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Any comments? --Mys_721tx(talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgable on the subject, but it seems fine to me (if technically possible). PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I was told that this job should be done by Language Converter. -- Rillke (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Rillke: Thanks for pointing that out. I did not know meta-wiki has that enabled before.

The converter here is not automatic yet. However, from the experience on Chinese Wikipedia, having it automatically convert page contents based on visitor's IP does not work as well as expected. (e.g. sometimes unregistered users will have to purge the cache to get the conversation of their locale.) It might just be easier to translate two versions rather than fixing the problems with the converter. --Mys_721tx(talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Banner for Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Azerbaijani

Hello! Who can create the main banner for Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 with Azerbaijani text "Viki Abidələri Sevir: Abidənin şəkilini çək, Vikipediyaya kömək et və qazan!"?

MediaWiki:Centralnotice-wlm 2013-text/az

--Interfase (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done by Romaine. Vogone talk 13:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Vote pages

There are > 100 vote pages (example) created for the wikivoyage logo election. My question is whether they should be deleted or not. Thanks in advance. -- Rillke (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why these should be deleted. Merged and redirected? Possibly (but not my preference). But not deleted. - dcljr (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism & Co. I will clear them from my watchlist now. -- Rillke (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Search in namespace name

I just noticed that Special:Search/grants retrospective doesn't appropriately list Grants:Retrospective 2009-2012. It's quite a downside for all those namespaces we have been creating, the most important keyword of their pages is excluded for searches. Is there a bug for this, or a workaround? --Nemo 10:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the Grants namespace isn't currently considered a content namespace? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, obvious reason is obvious. I assumed it was in $wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault but that's only Research, among the new namespaces. Some cleanup needed. --Nemo 12:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut hints on mouseover – missing shift?

When I mouseover on, say, my watchlist link, it tells me the shortcut was [alt-l] rather than [alt-shift-l]. Same in every wiki but I'm fairly sure those hints used to be correct. What happened? --Nirakka (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The tooltips are correct for me (FF 17.0.7 for Linux). Are they still incorrect for you? What browser are you using on what operating system? - dcljr (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, it's indeed related to the browser. In Chromium the tooltips are correct but in Iceweasel 20.0 on Debian Wheezy the shift is missing. --Nirakka (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I filed a bug now. --Nirakka (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RecentChanges

What happened to RecentChanges (in monobook)? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

#Enable CleanChanges Vogone talk 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Project proposal again

How much support should a project proposal get before an RFC is held on it? I see that the Wikivoyage proposal had about 50 supporters before its RFC, is this about right? Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no standard, as far as I know. We currently have a draft charter of the proposed Sister Projects Committee and a proposed new projects process. Since Wikimedia is currently in a "narrowing focus" phase, it is unlikely people would care about having an actual process for new project proposals. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested update to anon-footer templates

Context
Meta has outdated (halfbroken) versions of:

• MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon and MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext

At En and MW, these templates:

• w:Template:Anontools and mw:Template:Anontools

are used in the equivalent MediaWiki pages:

• w:MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext and mw:MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext
• w:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon and mw:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon

Suggestion
I'd recommend using the same setup (ie. create Template:Anontools here), and then update the 3 anontools templates to use the best available.

(I'm posting here because I'm not sure where is best, nor how many people watchlist the mediawiki: namespace talkpages.) HTH. Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to PiRSquared17 for fixing that all up properly! Anyone who enjoys watchlistingALLthethings should add Template:Anontools and Template:Anontools/ipv4 and Template:Anontools/ipv6 (which were copied from their latest enwiki versions). :) Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved.

Administrators or managers?

There are various job titles across the projects that have the word "administrator" at the end. For example Central Notice Administrators and Translation Administrators. Why not change all of them into Central Notice Managers, [TASK NAME HERE] Managers? Proper Administrators are sysops with their traditional tasks, and it might be confusing to have specialist administrators who are not administrators at all but rather manage a limited field of expertise. --Pxos (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Explain me the difference between the words "administrator" and "manager", please. If my dictionary is right, they describe the same thing (see also wikt:administrator). Regards, Vogone talk 19:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

They consist of different letters :) If someone manages a specialised field they should be named differently from administrators. A translation administrator is not an "administrator who deals with translation issues as well as being a normal sysop". --Pxos (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's time to reclaim the community logo

Hello community,
this is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you, the Meta-Wiki users, might be particularly interested. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo (which, incidentally, is the logo of this very wiki) as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on this page; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments on the talk page. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! odder (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Careful Discussion and Consideration

Dear all, thanks to the creators of this initiative. I support the idea of it. I am writing to point out that we should be careful in the discussions here. Filing a formal complaint can be misunderstood as an aggressive step.

I am happy that the WMF takes on the responsibility to protect our trademarks. On the other hand I am unhappy that the WMF is so restrictive with the use of trademarks within the community and its affiliates, especially the chapters who have trademark agreement already in place. We need to be aware that these are logos made by the community, provided to projects run by the community. WMF should be a service organisation, controlled by the same community doing all that work. Trademark registrations are neccessary to protect ourselves.

What is IMHO needed is a "trademark agreement" which allows the WMF to fight against misuse but on the other hand allows legit community members to use it freely in line with our mission. Therefore this discussion is important but I want to urge any party to abstain from any aggressiveness or assuming bad faith. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 10:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Rules about blocking by abusefilter

Ideas: (this is about Meta's local filters)

• It should be used only against spammers and obvious vandalism-only accounts (can it block IPs?)
• A filter which is set to blocking should first work without false positives for quite some time (in which it also needs to get hits at all)
• A page describing the blocking filters is created, which explains why the filter was set to blocking (similar to these pages on dewiki which give details about filters' purposes and are used for discussing false positives).
• When there are false positives, the blocking function is removed until the filter is changed in such way that we can be sure this kind of false positives won't occur anymore. The use of other abusefilter functions (like preventing the action) is not affected.
  --MF-W 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For reference, the original discussion is Meta:Babel/Archives/2013-08#Allow_Meta-Wiki_AbuseFilter_to_block_as_option. As one of the only two people to oppose it, the other being Nemo, I would rather have some restrictions on its use than allow an admin to create any blocking filter they want. Your suggestions seem fine to me. If it had been proposed with those explicit rules, I may have supported. If we are going to be an "example" for other wikis to enable blocking filters (which I would oppose generally), we should set a good example and have a process for this and some actual rules, like yours proposal. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

AbuseFilter's "abusefilter-modify-restricted" user right

Hi. I tried to edit a particularly pernicious AbuseFilter filter here earlier today (Special:AbuseFilter/60) and I learned that local administrators currently do not have the "abusefilter-modify-restricted" user right on Meta-Wiki (cf. <https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/abusefilter.php.txt>). Is there a reason for this? Abuse filter seemed to not indicate any particular reason, so I thought I'd ask here whether anyone would object to this user right being added to the "sysop" user group. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Which action listed there, specifically, is restricted? I don't understand why we can't edit this filter. Off-topic: Why should we have a filter that removes the autoconfirmed status of anyone with under 50 edits who tries to move two pages within a 15-minute period? I can understand preventing it for spam reasons, but removing autoconfirmed just seems strange. Almost all spambots have < 10 edits anyway, so that would seem to be a more reasonable limit, if one is needed at all. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are both very reasonable questions and I don't know the answer to either. :-) I just know that someone brought the filter to my attention earlier today and that when I tried to do anything to it (including un-hiding it or disabling it), I couldn't, even as a local admin. Would you support adding this user right to the local "sysop" user group? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, assuming abusefilter-modify-global is not included. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Per the SRM request I've disabled the filter for you. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes the rights to modify these filters should be added to the local sysop group. There should be no active filters on a project that can't be managed by the local administratorsa local functionary. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I infer from the description of the right (Modify abuse filters with restricted actions) that it concerns the editing of e.g. filters which can do evil things like blocking. Since blocking is not enabled by default on WMF wikis, there is no need for the rights either and therefore it is not assigned by default (& nobody noticed this when blocking was recently enabled for filters here). Since the only usage of blocking filters so far has been by stewards (but that's another issue), nobody remarked yet that the right is missing for sysops, I guess. — The only thing which I see in the filter's history which could have caused it to now need abusefilter-modify-restricted is the throttle in it (maybe the right required for imposing a throttle changed since the filter's creation or so..). --MF-W 15:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I wondered about that. Herby wasn't a Steward so something must have changed in the rights between him creating it in December 2012 and now. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: offtopic, but I'm a bit disappointed that AbuseFilter blocking was proposed for local use, but is now used only in global filters. Maybe we should at least have guidelines during the trial, like disable blocking if there are any FPs, or only use for obvious spam patterns, but the current situation worries me. It will set a precedent for real global blocking filters. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree (btw please don't "ping" me, I read everything anyway). I will write something about the global filters blocking on Talk:Global_AbuseFilter, and maybe we can discuss guidelines for the block functions for local filters on this page. --MF-W 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you can disable notifications for mentions in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)