Meta:Babel

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Subscribe to the This Month in Education newsletter - learn from others and share your stories[edit]

Dear community members,

Greetings from the EWOC Newsletter team and the education team at Wikimedia Foundation. We are very excited to share that we on tenth years of Education Newsletter (This Month in Education) invite you to join us by subscribing to the newsletter on your talk page or by sharing your activities in the upcoming newsletters. The Wikimedia Education newsletter is a monthly newsletter that collects articles written by community members using Wikimedia projects in education around the world, and it is published by the EWOC Newsletter team in collaboration with the Education team. These stories can bring you new ideas to try, valuable insights about the success and challenges of our community members in running education programs in their context.

If your affiliate/language project is developing its own education initiatives, please remember to take advantage of this newsletter to publish your stories with the wider movement that shares your passion for education. You can submit newsletter articles in your own language or submit bilingual articles for the education newsletter. For the month of January the deadline to submit articles is on the 20th January. We look forward to reading your stories.

Older versions of this newsletter can be found in the complete archive.

More information about the newsletter can be found at Education/Newsletter/About.

For more information, please contact spatnaikwikimedia.org.

Special:WikiSets[edit]

Just wondering, since there's only three sets left as for now (2, 7, 12), what content was in the rest of the sets, and what happened to them? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 08:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you expecting stewards to run a lookup service for your curiosity? I think that is a bit of a tall order. Check the deletion logs would be the best way to get an answer for yourself. If you believe that the stewards should be keeping a register of wikisets, then please start a conversation with the stewards, the topic is not really pertinent to here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some clues can be found in the Wiki Set Log

1. Created as a test in 2008
2. The existing "global bot wikis" set
3. Created as a test in 2008
4. Created as a test in 2008.
5. Created as a test in 2008. I can't find where any of these early tests were eventually deleted, maybe wiki set deletions weren't logged at the time?
6. Created as "Emergency flagged bot revision group" in June 2009 following an (unspecified) emergency. Repurposed at "Importupload" in September 2009, with no explanation. Repurposed again as "Arbcom_dewiki" on June 1, 2011 per request (but I can't find the request). Finally deleted as a deprecated group on June 18, 2011
7. The existing "global sysop wikis" set.
8. "Indic sysop wikis", created in 2010 as an [e]xample wikiset for RFC and potential future use. The RfC in question is Requests for comment/Indic Sysop. Renamed to "Indic Wikis" in 2011, and deleted as unused in 2013.
9. "Huggle wikis", created in 2011 as potential future use, maybe, and then deleted as unused in 2015.
10. "GR Opt-out wikis", created in 2011 following requests coming in to be opted out of GRs, and then deleted one day later. It appears the current logic about reusing wiki set numbers did not exist back then.
11. "CUlog", created as an apparent test in 2011 along with a CULogView group and deleted by the same user as unused in 2013. I can find no relevant discussions explaining what this is.
12. The "All existing wikis" set, used for New wiki importers
13. At various times a 13th wikiset has been created as a test and immediately deleted. This appears to free up the number for later wiki sets.
14. At one point in 2012, there were two test wikisets at the same time, so one got numbered "14"

* Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No! If needed or of emergency, I would just go to Steward requests, and that's not the case here. I'm really just wondering! Why are you being so hostile? Isn't here for "general discussions about Meta-Wiki"? I would still apologize if it's not appropriate to ask for this here though. I’m sad. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 08:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And of course @Pppery: Thanks for your research, I truly appreciate it. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 08:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Minor" project's Village Pumps are completely bloated with mass messages, leaving no room for project discussion[edit]

A comparison between the bloat of mass messages and actual project discussions.

I have the feeling that this is incrementally worse. Every team wants every message to be delivered to every project's chat. This mass messages creates 0 engagement, and it's causing actual discussions to be buried. Any thoughts? Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ignacio Rodríguez projects can direct those things elsewhere if they want. They are almost always delivered to a list, so a project can make a special pump for "annoucements", or redirect things like technical notices to a technical pump (like how these 74 projects have a technical pump: wikidata:Q4582194). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not every community, specially the smaller ones, has the knowledge or time to make those adjustments. There must be a better way instead of mindlessly flooding every pump with bloat Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sensitive to this concern: in my previous role as a Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) facilitator, I sent out a fair number of these mass messages to the places listed at Distribution list/Global message delivery. I noticed they did tend to pile up on the venues, and did fear this might discourage local users from creating other threads (or drown out threads) specific to those projects with sheer volume. I'm wondering how you've reached the conclusion that they create zero engagement though. How can you be sure no one is reading, clicking through, engaging here on Meta-Wiki, signing up for the events, voting on the topics, etc.? As a counter-point: most of the messages sent by MSG invite readers with a link to translate the original message into their language ({{int:please-translate}}), and there are a non-zero number of additional translations later submitted as a result. To me, this is at least a minor indicator that engagement is being generated, even if there's not many responses made directly on the village pumps. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you. The 0 part is definitively an exaggeration. What I meant is that the "project village pump" purpose is to discuss issues pertaining the project, and the mass messages doesn't (mostly) contribute to that. Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No offense taken! I'm glad that folks are thinking about this. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have become concerned about this as well (as I have found entire small projects missing from GMD and have been adding them). However I don't have any easy answers to offer. Certain things like elections and major policy changes need to be sent out. Perhaps we need to encourage more selective use of the GMD function, as well as some automated archiving of old messages. (Also see phab:T313672 which I suspect is related). --Rschen7754 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too feel like this is a problem. On Incubator I have created a separate page for such messages years ago, incubator:Incubator:Wikimedia news, distinct from the Community Portal which hosts discussions. I think this works well and I can only encourage every community that prefers to keep things separate to do so in this way. It's not like the global messages are irrelevant, just that local discussions tend to disappear, especially when they are "low volume" due to the community being small. --MF-W 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment If anyone is interested: we have decided to move all global message to a subpage within our main pump. s:es:Wikisource:Café/Noticias_Wikimedia. It seems to be a fair compromise. Maybe it can be the default way to treat small projects :) Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support ban on mass messaging Having a ban communicates that the messaging is inappropriate, and that mass messages should be exceptional and not routine. The effect of mass messages is the death of community discussion. Mass messages have spoiled the public commons and community space for marginal benefits mostly to the funded interests of the Wikimedia Foundation. For any community member to be heard, they have to compete against paid staff and paid projects for attention. The discussion boards were established for and by community, but this is not how they are currently used in 90% of community forums. It makes no sense to have 1000 local conversations of 10 people each to decide what to do when the problem originates at the top. Turning off the tap of mass messaging would prevent the flood. Almost everyone who is sending mass messages is engaged in unethical behavior to the detriment of the Wikimedia Movement. All can be forgiven for ignorance, but more awareness is needed for the problem.

A potential solution: the Wikimedia Foundation funds a project to establish messaging rules. We set a limit on how many messages go out per year, allocate quotas to different groups, then that is the limit on messages. Meta Wiki is not a social media platform, it cannot host messages without limit, and the current system unfairly favors anyone with money to post more messages. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ready for translation: Education Newsletter August 2022[edit]

August 2022 education newsletter released for translation. Please help our readers to read education newsletter in their native language. The latest education newsletter is ready for translation: here Newsletter headlines link for translation: here (please translate by September 06, 2022) Individual articles for translation: Category:Education/Newsletter/August 2022. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting input for a potential bot task[edit]

Hello. I was planning to run a file delinker service on Meta-Wiki, similar to what CommonsDelinker does but only for Meta-Wiki. The bot would delink files locally deleted by parsing the local deletion log. The bot would not remove local files that although locally deleted do exist with the same name at the shared repository (Commons) or whose deletion log has a note asking the bot not to delink (to be defined). The task would be carried out using the delinker.py Pywikibot script. An example delink can be found here. Since setting up this service would involve me setting up several things first, I'd be interested to know if there's any interest for this task beforehand. Thank you in advance for your input. Please let me know if you have any questions too. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MarcoAurelio any idea what sort of backlog needs to be worked though? Seems like there would be rare ongoing work (a quick review of deletion log shows only about 2 or 3 actual files deleted in the last 4 months). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Xaosflux. Certainly the backlog in recent days is low as we still have pending a review of our local files to see if they can be either transferred to Commons or deleted for lacking appropriate source/licensing (a task which is long overdue IMHO). I've been doing that from time to time, and I've been thinking on resuming that task when the time allows, for which a bot task to take care of this would be helpful IMHO. For example, File:Henry8.jpg was deleted in 2005 and still remains as a link. I can run a dry-run test to see how many pages / files would be affected. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grant editcontentmodel right for translation administrators[edit]

Please take notice that a discussion to add the editcontentmodel permission to the translation administrators is happening at Meta talk:Babylon § Grant editcontentmodel right for translation administrators. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition to WM:CSD one more code[edit]

We routinely delete IP userpage, but there isn't a formal CSD code for it. I propose adding one under Misc "Pages that are created by non-registered users". The pages tend to be able to meet G1/G3 (at times)/ G7 / M1 etc but IMHO a clear code will be beneficial. Ideas? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]