Wikimedia talk:Babel/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki Babel

Update requests

For minor update, use m:Translation requests/quick translation.

Site navigation

Honestly saying Wikimania site has better navigations than us. --- how do you think ? I am stronly ostinated by a thought non-English pages should have two kinds of navigation templates: one for interlang, one for all major pages in that language. But I have no idea what kind of dispositions will be best. (Top, side, or bottom ...) --Aphaea 19:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... and special skin like Wikimania, with some boxes, separated following topics ...--Aphaea 22:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • salut ;D i saw a "map site" somewhere, around a corner... mais bon, ce n'est pas le problème . Alvaro


Active users I contacted about this: Angela, Anthere, Aphaia, Datrio, Delphine, Jimbo, Kurt Jansson, Michael Snow, Solensean, Suisui, Vipuser.

Ok, it's time to take a break and to sit down at the Babel!

I've edited many pages to fix small things (see below), but above all, I built an inventory of the web site. I think we ought to clean up this wiki or it will be as messy as Meta soon :) There are.. many pages to be deleted, many pages to be categorized, many pages to be enhanced. See my inventory for the details, and also my proposals about some specific points. I asked Angela, Anthere and Michael about the possibility to be admin here, so at least someone (who has time and will) can take care of the website. Basically, I volunteer for the maintenance of the wiki (check wether translations are up to date and monitor Meta related stuff, check that templates are used in the good way, delete orphaned, enhance pages, contact new translators and so on) o/ Just ask :)

Concerning the small things:

  • working on categorization (lang cats, then usual cats by themes)
  • enhanced accessibility by improving the lang templates (can do more, but must be able to edit monobook.css easily)
  • updated/synched with english many French pages
  • and more to come btw :)

It would be great for me to have comment on the inventory, so I know what to do with (almost) each page. Jd 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it better than it was. But, I have a question. Why can't we link languages just like wikia:? at there, you can link other languages just same as a interwiki link and it is the most natural way to whom uses wikipedia/wikimedia projects. I want to remove those ugly language links from top of the every pages except home.--Suisui 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I mean, we need [[wikipedia:en:something]] but we dont need [[en:something]] link to wikipedia:en: from here--Suisui 12:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started something like the Wikia system, for example Category:English and Category:Français. The main category (say, English) gathers all English written pages, and the sub-categories organize those pages within thematic blocks.
One thing we must take into consideration is that many pages are available on English only (or have a poor translation so the English version is useful, or the English version is the official one (policies)). Thus, lang templates are often useful (even if, as you remind me on irc, japanese speakers often speak 日本語 only and are not interested with the English original text :). Translations issues affect old pages but also pages to come, since Meta translation process is freezed for many languages. So throwing away (all or any, don't know yet) lang templates may be an overreaction, IMO. jd  13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look 'n feel

You've talked about the design some weeks months ago. What do you think of the website looking (a bit more) like a "static" website? I mean, we might get rid of the traditionnal monobook stylesheet and have the wiki wearing a nicer, fancier, smarter skin which would fit both the wiki spirit and more traditionnal needs. I don't think the toolbox and all the edit, historyneeded, as talk pages, blabla stuff is needed by readers, since this wiki is in fact a "legal front", with few updates. If I'm right, we can have MediaWiki to hide those wiki elements to the anonymous users (and have them coming out again for registered contributors who need them to edit pages). If you think a good idea all this is, I can draft out a stylesheet :) Jd 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, absolutely. And it might be a good idea to limit the pages which should exist in translations to a minimum which can be updated. It shows the foundation in a bad light if more than half of the content of this wiki here is outdated. --Elian 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You told me something like of would be nice (something "clean"). What do others think? jd  23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same. Go on, please. -- Akl 22:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Go ahead. Also arguments on the above around language links are better to be considered much than before. Commons features this already. --Aphaea 10:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the skin, but one annoying feature that should be removed is the [edit] link at every section for non-registered users, it gets their hopes up, just to be squashed by the site-feedback message.--Dami 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps we can deal with such removal in css ... but I don't know how to. We can insert NOSECTIONEDIT instead. --Aphaea 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should add .editsection {display:none;} to MediaWiki:Common.css. MaxSem 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been added by Bastique. Cbrown1023 talk 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to still see the section edit links, add .editsection { display:inline !important; } to your personal .css. Cbrown1023 talk 00:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've removed the .editsection hiding code. Users who are not logged in should not have edit sections links at all, so there should be nothing to hide. And hiding them for logged-in users just causes headaches on pages like this one. --MZMcBride 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now they don't have those edit section links, it didn't used to be that way. Cbrown1023 talk 22:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so 3008, you're so 2000-and-late. --MZMcBride 22:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all --

HTML Tidy has been disabled on this wiki due to issues with Tidy stripping out <style> tags inside <html> tags.

HTML Tidy runs on nearly all Wikimedia wikis. It cleans up HTML, usually closing unclosed <div>s or <span>s and making the code safer in general (and less likely to break the rest of the page content if poor code is input by the user).

After being disabled and as the cache has begun to re-generate, some poor code is now becoming visible in normal page output. For example, Home began displaying <div style="clear:both" /> in several places because Tidy is no longer correcting this poor code (div's and span's both require closing tags and cannot be self-closed, at least in some versions of HTML). The Job openings page had a similar issue where it was using </div>, but not <div>.

If you see any pages now displaying incorrectly with no recent changes (in the page history) to the underlying code, the disablement of Tidy is likely the cause. Please note issues here so that they may be corrected on the entire site and not just as people notice them.

Thanks. --MZMcBride 09:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audit committee has these issues. - Rjd0060 02:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what you're talking about. Which part of the text shows the </div>s? --MZMcBride 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the complete bottem of the page, seems to have left now :) Huib talk 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All users now able to edit MediaWiki namespace

Per the resolution of bug 21469, all (registered) users are now able to edit the MediaWiki namespace. --MZMcBride 20:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]



I am wondering, the WMF sites supports the transwiki function but is there a special reason why we just copy paste the translations to here? Because when it would be imported it would keep the history in tact?

Best, Huib talk 16:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huib. While we are technically able to import pages directly from Meta, we usually don't because the entire process can just be messy (eg. formatting differences, such as translation templates) and there really isn't a good reason to. Keeping the translation process (and the history pages) on Meta just works best. --Az1568 17:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Alex is right. We don't use the import function because it just doesn't make sense to use it. We don't just copy-paste the translations, we usually have to update links, make sure everything's functioning properly and nothing was missed in the translation, etc. We also have to remove the Meta-Wiki templates that are used there (like m:Template:Translation2). Using import just overly complicates this and makes it more difficult for us to clean things up. In addition, it makes us need to maintain two different histories on two different wikis, which just causes more issues. It's much easier and cleaner to just link to the Meta-Wiki source page like we do now ("m:Translation requests/WMF/PAGE"). Cbrown1023 talk 17:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okay, totally clear now :) Huib talk 19:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol-relative URLs

Hi. There are a bunch of hard-coded URL protocols in pages such as WMFJA085/en. Does it make sense to switch these to protocol-relative syntax? --MZMcBride 17:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I think it makes sense to switch them, we're trying to shift people away from those pages over the next couple days but it's going to be better regardless. I'll poke the PCs to do it if I don't get there but feel free to if you have time. Jalexander

Old user pages

Former site users continue to have user pages here. Does it make sense to blank/delete these pages or should they simply be left alone? Or should they be updated to reflect past service (as some already have been)? An example page of a former site user is User:Sma. --MZMcBride 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has commented, I generally update the tenses when I see them, since this wiki is more official. Each to their own, though. PeterSymonds 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raw HTML info page

I wrote a page about raw HTML on this wiki here: Wikimedia:Raw HTML. --MZMcBride 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spell checking

The following discussion was moved from Talk:Home

Hi. I would like to run a supervised spell checking script (I will manually confirm each edit.) to correct typos on this wiki such as this edit. Is it OK? Do I need to create a new bot account or can I run the script under my current account? Edit rate is expected to be low. (4 to 5 edits per minute.) --Meno25 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meno25, thanks for your work so far! I'm not sure that running the spell checking script on letters or personal pieces of work is the best idea, but it would be a good idea for the generic information pages, such as the FAQ (although that's currently being worked on, so I wouldn't do it on that one yet), Our projects etc. Any of the Resolutions probably shouldn't be touched, and the same would apply for donation pages - do you have a list of pages in mind that you would run the script on, or was this intended to be for the whole wiki? With regards to using a new bot account, I don't believe we use bot accounts here, but I'll leave that to someone else to comment on. Thehelpfulone 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fine to me to run under your main account with the caveats that Thehelpfulone mentioned. In short, you cannot touch a certain subset of pages on this wiki, even if they contain typos or other obvious errors. As long as you're very careful, it's no problem to fix up spelling and grammar mistakes. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that when I see edits such as this one from earlier today, it makes me very hesitant to trust you to make bulk changes to this wiki. These templates were mis-placed on user pages instead of user talk pages. The reason for humans to exist is to make judgments such as "this is the wrong place, let me move the template before substituting it." You apparently removed the human judgment and acted more like a bot, which is very worrying. You must be careful or you risk making the site worse rather than better. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehelpfulone: Thank you for your comment. Actually creating a dedicated bot account is better so as not to flood recent changes but I am fine with running the script under my account. The list of pages is found here. Feel free to add or remove pages to it.
@MZMcBride: Some users like to have the welcome template on their userpages because it contains a lot of useful links. I thought this was the case here and that the template wasn't misplaced. Anyway, I would like you to give me another chance to prove that I have good judgement. I will make only five edits and I invite you again to asses the edits. --Meno25 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of pages that were detected as having typos but that I am rather hesitant whether to fix them or not. Please weigh in. --Meno25 (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another 50 test edits. I estimate the remaining edits at 150. Any comments? --Meno25 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I looked at every diff. Most are fine. Thanks for your work. :-)
Please do try to avoid the URL changes (such as at FAQ/ar), though they're not a big deal to revert. Just a bit messier. And I'm not quite sure we should be changing quotes from legal documents (as you did with DMCA Texas Instruments). But both of these are very minor issues.
If you can do maybe 50 or so edits per day, that would keep Special:RecentChanges more reasonable and would allow for a more thorough review of your edits. But if you really want to do all the remaining edits in a big sprint, I won't object. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the edits. Points taken. Let's keep it at 50 edits per day then. --Meno25 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another 50 edits for today. I was rather hesitant to fix typos on meetings pages. I did them then reverted them as they were personal notes. --Meno25 (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. All done. --Meno25 (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Wiki Discussion

Please participate in the discussion about the home page and the wiki's purpose in general at m:Foundation_wiki_feedback#Purpose_of_wmf:Home. Monomium (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enable flagged revs on this project

It seems like it would be a good idea to install FlaggedRevs on this wiki so that people at the WMF who are responsible for important pages can check edits before they go live. Comments? Monomium (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed previously; cf. m:Liberating --MZMcBride (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename user account

Could a crat rename 'Monomium' to 'Mono' so it will match with other WM projects? Monomium (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should leave a note on Philippe's talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"View source" tab renamed to "Suggest a change"

Hi. In this edit, "View source" was changed to "Suggest a change". This change affects logged-out users in at least the Monobook and Vector skins. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mission and Vision translation sync

Dipping my toes in the water ...

Comparing Mission statement vs meta:Mission, the following nine languages on meta are 100% and (I think) should be added to wmfwiki:

  • French  Done
  • Irish  Done
  • Japanese  Done
  • Korean  Done
  • Macedonean  Done
  • Polish  Done
  • Tagalog
  • ‎Ukrainian
  • Uzbek

Comparing Vision vs meta:Vision, the following five languages on meta are 100% and (I think) should be added to wmfwiki:

  • Asturian
  • Breton
  • Galician
  • ‎Maltese
  • Chinese

Also I have made some changes to meta:Vision, removing one message that I don't think is useful on that page (and isnt on the wmfwiki page)[1], and Croatian will also be 100% when the meta translation status update.

I'm happy to do the sync of those pages, but want to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

However we have a problem: Visión is both Galician and Spanish. How do we normally solve that problem on wmfwiki? John Vandenberg (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked some of them done. I would appreciate a review before I add them to {{MissionLang}} and continue doing some more.
I figured out that wmfwiki would use Visión (gl) and Visión (es).
Throwing another question out there. wmfwiki doesnt have m:template:unicode, so I dropped it for Мисијата. It looks OK on firefox/linux as I would expect - I am guessing it may not render correctly on some other configurations. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can sync them. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English on main page or "en" sub page

Pages that are manually translated often have both the "Subject" and "Subject/en" page. Some of them are equal, some of them are out of sync, others redirect from one to the other. I'd like us to standardise this.

The odd ones I found are: Donor policy (out of sync), Tax Deductibility (redirects from subject to /en) and Cancel or change recurring payments (redirects from /en to subject). If these are exceptions and there is already an established consensus for how it should be, I'd be happy to hear that and apply it accordingly.

Either way, the solution should take into account that the links put in fundraiser banners right now (such as Special:LandingCheck?landing_page=Cancel_or_change_recurring_payments&language=en) point to the /en sub page. So the /en sub page should not be a redirect - to avoid adding additional "(Redirected from ..)" clutter to a page that is frequently linked to. –Krinkle (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a list of pages where there's "Foo" and "Foo/en", preferably with an indication of which is a redirect (if either)? That would be very helpful in this discussion, I think.
Generally, when you say "out of sync," I'm not sure I follow. Shouldn't all of these cases have one of the titles be a redirect to the other?
Regarding the "redirected from..." text, we can use CSS to hide it and/or the fundraising team can update its code. In any case, I doubt many people notice the "redirected from..." text besides obsessive Wikimedians like you and me. I'm not sure it's really clutter as much as it is a minor nuisance to established users. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the three that were mentioned. Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Site has been moved

The site has been moved from to apparently. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]