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.
|
| Wikimedia Foundation social media strategy |
| Wikimedia Social Suite |
| Meetup |
| Babel |
| Distribution list |
| ComCom |
| Mailing lists |
|---|
| Overview |
| Administration |
| Standardization |
| List info template |
| Unsubscribing |
| Wikimedia IRC |
| Channels listing |
| #wikidata-admin |
| #wikimedia-admin |
| #wikipedia-en-admins |
| Channel operators |
| #wikimedia-admin |
| #wikipedia-en-admins |
| #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en |
| Instructions |
| Guidelines |
| #wikipedia |
| Group Contacts |
| Noticeboard & Log |
| Cloaks |
| Bots |
| FAQ |
| Stalkwords |
| WikiLounge (WMCS-based IRC web client and bouncer) |
| Quotes (en) |
| archives |
| Quotes (fr) |
| Other social networks |
| Discord |
| Matrix.org |
| Signal |
| Steam |
| Telegram |
| [Edit] |
Request for comment (the future of Abstract Wikipedia)
[edit]
You are invited to voice your opinions in a request for comment about the future of Abstract Wikipedia. Thank you! Kowal2701 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Request for translation: Education Newsletter July 2026
[edit]The July 2026 education newsletter has been 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, to read individual articles check out: Category:Education/Newsletter/July 2026. Your support in making this newsletter multilingual means a lot. Thanks for helping share knowledge across borders! Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Test consumers
[edit]Hi, I made some Oauth test consumers and they were approved right away but i made 3 consumers also test since and they are still waiting to be aprroved. I made them because i cant change their rights or i dont know you can change them. Why is that? Malyzolwikson (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Malyzolwikson owner-only consumers use a different process than public consumers. Please do not make nonsense applications, example Description: mmm. — xaosflux Talk 18:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Do you need these multiple public consumers? I rejected the 2 with nonsense descriptions. — xaosflux Talk 18:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Not right now i use the owner only but soon i will probably use this one Malyzolwikson (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, which of these do you NOT need:
4ec623ab7b1756ea90030c1b24386529,930e96d340bb839b850def9a2eb7adcf? — xaosflux Talk 22:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)- Hi. I've just made a consumer that will be my main one could you approve that? Malyzolwikson (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- You are not answering my question. You currently have the following requests. Which ones are NOT needed?:
- 930e96d340bb839b850def9a2eb7adcf
- 4ec623ab7b1756ea90030c1b24386529
- dbbfd17db3e4cf70c423eae1f9a02903
- 2ab59fabd25d8041ba88332799d5a17d
- — xaosflux Talk 13:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- all of them except the last one I made. Sorry I didn't answer Malyzolwikson (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, for ...a17d go list at Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#OAuth_permissions if someone doesn't get to it in a bit. — xaosflux Talk 19:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- I dont understand why did you disabled my consumer? Malyzolwikson (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- You just said you do NOT NEED all of the ones above except for ...a17d, which is currently still in "proposed". So which specific one are you now asking about? — xaosflux Talk 22:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- could you approve this? Malyzolwikson (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- I told you above where to list that. — xaosflux Talk 01:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- could you approve this? Malyzolwikson (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- You just said you do NOT NEED all of the ones above except for ...a17d, which is currently still in "proposed". So which specific one are you now asking about? — xaosflux Talk 22:57, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- I dont understand why did you disabled my consumer? Malyzolwikson (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, for ...a17d go list at Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#OAuth_permissions if someone doesn't get to it in a bit. — xaosflux Talk 19:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- all of them except the last one I made. Sorry I didn't answer Malyzolwikson (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- You are not answering my question. You currently have the following requests. Which ones are NOT needed?:
- Hi. I've just made a consumer that will be my main one could you approve that? Malyzolwikson (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, which of these do you NOT need:
- Not right now i use the owner only but soon i will probably use this one Malyzolwikson (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Proposal to add a talk page guideline for Meta
[edit]Hello, currently Meta does not have a talk page guideline or policy listed under Meta:Policies and guidelines.
Reason for this proposal: a UCoC case (which should not be litigated in this Babel discussion) leads me to believe that Meta should have such a policy or guideline at least for user talk pages, so that informal consensus or unwritten norms are not used as a basis for enforcement actions related to user talk page conduct on Meta. A written policy or guideline may be used by everyone to understand the expectations on Meta for talk page activities, and also by administrators and others as a point of reference for possible enforcement actions related to talk page conduct. Administrators or others who may be hesitant to intervene in a problematic situation on talk pages hopefully will become less hesitant if they can refer to this policy or guideline page as a point of reference.
en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is much longer than I hope that the Meta policy or guideline will be.
I have not yet drafted a page but I would like to get feedback regarding elements to include.
Suggested elements of the Meta page:
- The purpose of Meta
- General civility expectations
- The general purpose and format of talk pages
- Recommended practices on talk pages, such as the use of a talk page header, ping, and subscribing to discussions.
- Generally prohibited activities on talk pages, such as misusing another person's signature to misrepresent who made a statement, or removing a warning. See en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more.
- Similarities and differences between general talk pages and user talk pages.
- User talk pages are not "owned".
- How to use talk pages in specific use cases
- When recruiting for new participants for an activity such as Wiki Loves Monuments, joining an affiliate, or voting in steward elections.
- When contacting people who may be interested and eligible for an activity (same examples as above) and have participated in it previously but did not sign up for a newsletter or for another round of participation.
- When contacting people who may be interested and eligible for for an activity (same examples as above), but did not sign up for a newsletter or for a round of participation and have not participated in it within the past few years.
- When petitioning for people who have signed up for official roles to take certain actions, such as a request to engage in a discussion or to take a specific action.
- When advocating for or against candidates for a role or an award. This is typically prohibited as "canvassing".
- When contacting someone on their user talk page related to a discussion that is already happening on a more centralized location such as a project talk page, to discuss a specific point related to them or related to their comments in that more centralized location.
- Escalation pathway for conduct concerns, starting with a courtesy notice and then escalating to a formal warning, and finally to administrator involvement. Remember that some users on Meta may act on talk pages in ways that are consistent with norms on other wikis but need to be informed of Meta norms.
What do others think about having the above as a starting framework for a draft?
@Ajraddatz: please see the above proposal.
༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 19:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Has this ever been a problem before this U4C case? Levivich (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for getting the policy conversation going. Glad that something good will come from all of this. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think we need specific or prescriptive guidance for talk page use. This generally isn't an issue, and the problem in the recent case was the semi-disruptive nature of the messages due to both their tone and the fact that they were individually sent to each board member, inviting discussion in seven places over the same issue. Looking at Meta:NOT, maybe the answer is to add a bit to point 7 specifying that discussions should usually be contained to one place to avoid fragmentation. The civility part is already captured under Meta:Civility and point 10 of Meta:NOT. While that would still leave wiggle room that some might not like, I think that in the future admins should/will be more careful in how they word their messages and the general guidance should be enough. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Any blockable offense that is not obvious (such as posting to multiple talk pages) should definitely be put into writing. Clarifying cultural norms and preferred practices would be super helpful. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with @Ajraddatz. If we continuously had disagreements regarding proper talk page use and administrative actions in that area a new rule page might be warranted but I don't know of any other case in recent history. Count Count (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- This, needing a book of rules about one namespace seems like overkill. — xaosflux Talk 09:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: as a short term way to address only the issue that surfaced in this case, I would be fine with adding a point to Meta:NOT and in the same paragraph informing admins that first time breaches of this guideline should generally be handled with a non-threatening courtesy notice rather than proceeding immediately to warnings, and a reminder that people may be participating on Meta from diverse backgrounds including other wikis which have different talk page norms. In the longer term, I think Meta would be better served by having a dedicated page for a talk page guideline or policy, although it can be shorter than English Wikipedia's. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 19:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think expanding that entry on Meta:NOT would be a bit more broad than just this case - duplicating dicussions across projects and on Meta itself has been an occasional problem in the past. I am also ok with either adding a caveat for admins to that item, or even adding another item at the bottom of the list, noting that Meta is not the home wiki for most users who stop by to comment here, and thus highlight the need to assume good faith and provide helpful suggestions when people aren't meeting (particularly unwritten) expectations. I understand the desire for a talk page guideline, but Meta doesn't even have a blocking policy. If I were starting to write things down, talk pages would be pretty far down the list. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Now is not too soon for Meta participants in general to start with putting things into writing that are unwritten but expected. Doing things based on unwritten consensus is a recipe for conflicts. Speaking of which, getting a wider consensus on what notifications should be allowed on talk pages I continue to think is a good idea, even if only Meta:NOT is updated with what the outcome of that discussion is. I would not want an unwritten agreement among a few administrators to be treated as if it is a guideline that the Meta community in general has ratified. I believe that in general, it is best practice to avoid treating a norm, especially an unwritten norm, as if it has a formal consensus or is an enforceable policy. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Much more useful would be a short page for admins:
- Don't block based on unwritten rules
- Don't block or threaten to block based on written rules without first friendly informing the editor that they should do something different (this doesn't apply to clear vandalism and the like, but for possibly good faith attempts at editing)
- Don't treat people and their opinions differently based on whether they are a Meta admin, a Meta regular, a non-meta regular, or a newbie
- If followed, this would likely have avoided all of this. Fram (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
The page w:en:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is much longer than Meta's and also happens to contain several things which are explicitly not what we want on Meta. That's why we usually have guidelines mostly to focus on the main things which might be surprising, like Meta:Snowball, but we don't necessarily have guidelines to list everything that is different from the English Wikipedia. I honestly still don't understand what went wrong in this case, as there were several factors at play. There was a series of misunderstandings and overreactions from various quarters, so one guideline I'd bet would have helped is MeatBall:ReactLater. Not a guideline but NVC can help in such circumstances; I could try to think of some short pointers to add somewhere, if we have ideas where. Nemo 20:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- To the points raised by Nemo_bis and Fram, I wonder if adding applicable guidance for administrators in how to handle similar situations should be added to Meta:Admin handbook. @Ajraddatz: what do you think? ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 02:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Good idea. Not sure how well read the handbook is (I didn't realize it existed lol) but I think a paragraph on dealing with experienced users from other projects who might not know the ins and outs of Meta could be boldly added under the blocks section. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- I've added some suggested text, as the page is a handbook and not a guideline. Feel free to edit or add yourself as well (Pine or others, but please keep it to general advice...). – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. It also may be good to ensure that new admins actually read that guide, and that existing admins review it periodically. Perhaps admins should get a "continuing adminship education" requirement that involves a quarterly review of the changes to that guide and other Meta policies. ༄ᨒ𖠰 Pine (✉) 04:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Good idea. Not sure how well read the handbook is (I didn't realize it existed lol) but I think a paragraph on dealing with experienced users from other projects who might not know the ins and outs of Meta could be boldly added under the blocks section. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)