In the past, Stable interface policy was prepared for translation and then reverted with the summary 'Disable translate extension. Use subpages instead.'
Is it okay to prepare for translation Stable interface policy/Frontend?"
Project:Village Pump
About this board
This page is only for discussing issues related to MediaWiki.org site.
Archives
|
|---|
|
|
Courtesy ping for Krinkle, who made the mentioned edit.
I don’t think manual translation is ever a good solution, short of language-specific content (like glossaries, label/description conventions on Wikidata etc.). Not using the Translate extension is a bit easier for authors of the English document, but much more complicated for translators, and gives less confidence for readers, as there’s no indication of whether the translation is up to date.
For a significant period, Category:MediaWiki configuration settings 1.40.0 and Category:MediaWiki configuration settings introduced in version 1.40.0 have had overlapping content (with similar overlaps found in other versions).
This revision removes pages from the category mentioned earlier.
Special:Diff/845365's edit summary: "Add a category for deprecated configuration settings; add a category for when a configuration setting was introduced that is redundant with an existing category, but that matches the naming style of the deprecated and removed categories."
What are your thoughts?
I see no need to have two sets of categories containing exactly the same pages.
Agreed
The phrasing of "MediaWiki configuration settings 1.x.x" has always bothered me. "MediaWiki configuration settings introduced in version 1.x.x" is way better. I agree with the proposal.
Can an interface administrator (someone with interface editing + any user group that is able to delete pages) please delete these pages when appropriate? They were nominated for deletion by the page creator.
I would personally prefer that these pages be history merged into the corresponding MiniEdit pages rather than deleted, but I have no good reason for that and am fine with another Iadmin deleting without history merging.
Not strictly related to the deletion, but I have some questions:
- Why the user was able to edit the MediaWiki namespace without being interface-admin? Maybe he can delete those pages as well.
- Why it hasn't been created as a gadget here, despite the installation instructions recommending it?
The user that requested deletion has global interface editor permissions to create/edit those pages, but it appears they cannot delete pages.
It looks like GIE needs to be given move rights… Although I'm not sure what the envisaged scope of the group was. but "creating" pages instead of moving has potentially broken history (and any licensing requirements that it needs)
Perhaps moving/history merge could be done instead, if that is somehow possible.
History merge will probably don't work here, since the source page was edited after creating the target page. And to make things even more complicated, the content model was changed too. Doing the "old school" merge history of deleting target page, move old to new, delete and then restore specific revisions should work, but that's always a bit involved.
Bringing @Sophivorus attention just for awareness sake.
Hi guys, sorry for all the trouble. Given all these complications, and since I'm the only author of the page, and I really don't mind losing the history, if @Pppery agrees, I'd say just delete it with no history merge. Else, doing the old-school merge would be fine too, as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to avoid causing these complications in the future, cheers!
When my currently pending request for interface adminship is granted, I'll do a history merge. Any existing Iadmin is free to push the delete button in the meantime. The problem is that none appear to be watching this thread.
Hello @all
My hosting services entry is only visible in english, how I get it visible also for other languages, for e. g. german?
The issue seems to be fixed by a bot (FuzzyBot), but I couldn't figure out how to translate the contents of the table, is there a way? Translate doesn't show table content, as far I could see.
What kind of feedback are you referring to?
Are you saying it is not visible at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hosting_services/de or that the blurb isn't in german?
It looks like it is visible now (there may just have been a delay). If you want the blurb to be translated, you have to surround the english version of the blurb in <translate>Text to translate</translate>.
That it isn't in german. I have added the translate tags and will wait till the bot adds my changes.
It also has to wait for someone to make the translation
Thanks, it's done.
Hello @all
I wanted to add my hosting service including external link to my hosting business to Hosting services. But I'm not allow to add a external link, can someone tell me how to proceed?
You should be able to do so now.
Thanks, it worked.
Could an interface admin please handle the request at MediaWiki talk:Mobile.css? Thanks.
A minor request. The external link in this section of page Extension:FontAwesome still links to the older version (v5). Please update it as normal users are apparently unable to edit an external link.
There's a thread on the English Wikipedia's Village Pump that would be of interest to MediaWiki devs. As you can see, once the idea is brought up, a large fraction of editors believe being able to mark edits as minor is a bad idea and should be removed. (Disclaimer: I am not a neutral party and am one of the biggest proponents of this idea.) Jason Quinn (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Proper link for convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal_to_remove_%22rearrangement_of_text%22_from_definition_of_minor_edit.
That's mostly just en.wp's business. They tell us what they want and we go do it. We already have support in mediawiki for restricting who can make minor edits on a per usergroup basis.
Perhaps devs should question the raison d'etre of the "minor edit" toggle. The claim being discussed is that it is an anti-feature because it does not reliably convey the information it is intended to convey and that this is largely because the concept a "minor edit" itself is ambiguous to the point of being partly useless. The same will be true for all languages. Therefore it should be totally turned off for all languages going forward, not just the English Wikipedia because that community wanted it but because is a bad software design idea (ie this perhaps is more of a development topic than a community issue).
I don't know Mediawiki's codebase but if it's possible maybe all traces of "minor edit" code could be removed completely. That code could be split off into some sort of plugin or patch that enables it if installed. The patch should also have a toggle to have the feature actually turned on or not on the wiki. This approach covers all bases: it excises the minor edit feature from brand new wikis while allowing wikis that want "minor edits" for some reason to still have it whilst also satisfying legacy wikis that don't want "minor edits" but that regrettably need to have it (eg so that past conversations regarding edits that mentioned their minor edit status still makes sense).
Get an rfc on meta if you want it killed across all projects. En.wp certainly doesn't speak for the rest of wikimedia.
As far as if it is a good idea. Meh, wouldn't be the first time mediawiki had a feature that turned out to be a bad idea. Maybe it would get removed if it became clear everyone hates it across the board, but we are nowhere near that stage yet.
In terms of pure practicality - extensifying it might be difficult in its current form. It currently involves extra fields in the revision and recentchanges tables, which is something extensions aren't supposed to do. Probably the way to extensify it would be to reimplement it as a special purpose edit tag. Honestly that sounds like quite a bit of work that's not worth it. If enough people like it we would probably just keep it with an off switch, if nobody wants it it would probably just be removed. (To be clear, i dont speak for other devs or the WMF, they may disagree with me)
More specifically, this would be "complete restriction of…", we won't drop the functionality, just who can use it.
Hello all,
I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.
The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.
Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.
Best,
RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
can you make my page unprotected