Meta:Babel
- You can comment here in any language.
- This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
- If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
- For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
- For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
- To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
- Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
New template for diff links (cross-project)
Providing diff links to substantiate certain claims (or simply to point to some specific change) is common practice in the WMF projects. Typically, these are diffs from the same project. However, on projects like Meta, where other projects are coordinated, or in Commons or Wikidata, that serve many other projects, it may be necessary to also provide diffs from another project. The standard {{diff}} template, while otherwise a venerable tool, doesn't provide such functionality.
Enter {{xdiff}}. Besides using very slightly simplified syntax (which I personally find more convenient), it supports cross-project (that is, from a different project, not between projects, of course) diff links.
Here's an example from enwiki: {{xdiff|188929697|188927826|Don't delete the main page|w:en}} => Don't delete the main page
And another from Commons (which also uses the default “diff” label): {{xdiff|343980000|343611222||c}} => diff
Check the documentation in {{xdiff}} for instructions on its usage and for more examples.
Cheers,
— Luchesar • T/C 12:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
{{xoldid}}also added, common code moved to{{interwiki2url}}.
— Luchesar • T/C 11:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Current state of "General requests"
Currently, the "General requests" looks all but abandoned or overlooked. The page is getting huger and longer to browse, so archiving may be needed. Threads within the past year have receiver very little to no reply. If it can't be marked as "inactive", what else can be done about the venue? George Ho (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- George Ho: The banner was changed a few days ago, stating that the page is rarely watched and recommends SRM to add requests. As "General" includes "Miscellaneous", we could make the page deprecated and tell users where to go. That way new requests (that aren't so many) can be seen by more users. Esteban16 (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Vertically-oriented column headers for tables
| 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 8 | 13 |
Sometimes, like here, tables can get quite wide only because of the column headers. In such cases, rotating the headers to a vertical position may help to keep the tables compact and even easier to read. There are templates that allow this, and I've ported (well, mostly just copy-pasted) {{Vertical header}} from enwiki (may also be used as {{vert header}} and {{verth}}), along with a few more templates, on which it or its documentation depended, for example {{Quick table}}. Enjoy!
— Luchesar • T/C 11:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wish I could thank you enough for this _innovation_, as writing in Japanese, the overflow of the column title is very disturbing as the double-byte fonts are thicker on visual impact. Thank you and I can't wait applying them in translated pages I will work in the future. Domo arigato ! --Omotecho (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Omotecho, thank you so much for the kind words; I do hope it will indeed solve those problems. At the same time, I should probably also emphasise again that my contribution has been absolutely miniscule: basically just copy-pasting the module, templates and docs code from the English Wikipedia with just a few really minor touches here and there. Whoever has written those things from scratch (haven't checked, tbh) deserves the real praise. :)
- In any case, though, if you find anything not properly working, please let me know and I'll see if I can fix it.
— Luchesar • T/C 10:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- In any case, though, if you find anything not properly working, please let me know and I'll see if I can fix it.
New tools and IP masking
Hey everyone,
The Wikimedia Foundation wants to work on two things that affect how we patrol changes and handle vandalism and harassment. We want to make the tools that are used to handle bad edits better. We also want to get better privacy for unregistered users so their IP addresses are no longer shown to everyone in the world. We would not hide IP addresses until we have better tools for patrolling.
We have an idea of what tools could be working better and how a more limited access to IP addresses would change things, but we need to hear from more wikis. You can read more about the project on Meta and post comments and feedback. Now is when we need to hear from you to be able to give you better tools to handle vandalism, spam and harassment.
You can post in your language if you can't write in English.
Johan (WMF)14:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Enable partial block on Meta?
this may be a usecase.--GZWDer (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose basically per -revi’s user page. There are no circumstances I could foresee where partial blocking someone would be preferred to blocking them outright. If you can’t be trusted to edit one page without enforcement through technical means, you can’t bd trusted to edit any. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is already enabled. MCC214 block was my conscious decision NOT to use partial block per my userpage. — regards, Revi 17:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I forgot about them enabling it here first. Anyway, opposition to expanding its use to be normal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think -revi and Tony sums my thoughts pretty well. I won't ask to remove PBs from Meta at this stage though I feel that for a project like Meta PBs ain't going to be very useful. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Support This can be useful for some staff-related pages e.g. Schema:ServerSideAccountCreation. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment we already have it and it is most useful for IP addresses or ranges. There are certain pages where vandals hang out or try to be trolls, and its functionality is magic. Stops the trolls from getting some of their jollies. At a central coordinating wiki, slowly restricting problematic IP address/ranges is better. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Requested pages?
Is there a list of pages that Meta probably should have, but doesn't? If not, should there be such a list? There are a lot of significant Wikimedia topics that don't seem to have any documentation. --Yair rand (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say that Special:WantedPages provides some indication. --bdijkstra (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Does it? I went through the first 200 results and didn't see anything worth creating a page about. Killiondude (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)