Meta:Babel/Archives/2018-04
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Meta:Babel | Archives
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by SpBot (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 2 June 2018 (archiving 1 section from Meta:Babel). It may differ significantly from the current version .
Latest comment: 6 years ago by MarcoAurelio in topic RemexHTML replacing Tidy
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in April 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.
Seeking clarification re meta NPOV
Can someone with a meta perspective and knowledge of the history of meta NPOV kindly respond to my q posted here? tia, Humanengr (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- At a meta level, all of the content on Wikimedia sites should be written from a neutral point of view. There's some debate whether that applies to the Foundation taking political action, with some arguing that it violates NPOV if we as an organization take a side, while others argue that we need to ensure our own survival. As to why only specific projects are listed on the page, it's only projects with a formal NPOV policy. Not all have/need one. (And the page is somewhat confusing in that it says Wikibooks etc as if all language versions have the same policy, and some don't). – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thx. What’s also confusing is that for those projects that "have a strict NPOV policy", does that mean they essentially adhere to the ‘original formulation’? Any insight would help. Humanengr (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure, and it's not really important to break down the wording here. The NPOV page isn't a policy page. If it isn't clear, you can edit it to make it more clear. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thx. What’s also confusing is that for those projects that "have a strict NPOV policy", does that mean they essentially adhere to the ‘original formulation’? Any insight would help. Humanengr (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
AbuseFilter False Positive
Not exactly sure where else to place this on Meta, but for some reason, I got hit by an AbuseFilter for placing this warning on an anon's talk page. Seems kind of odd. OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @OhKayeSierra: don't worry about it. For note, it wasn't for placing the warning, it was for you attempting to "remove it" when you were trying to correct it. — xaosflux Talk 13:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
RemexHTML replacing Tidy
RemexHTML will probably be enabled on Meta 2 May. mw:RemexHtml is a parsing library. It replaces Tidy. You can read more, but if this doesn't say you anything at all, you can probably ignore this. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Johan (WMF). According to Special:LintErrors we have ~500,000 high priority errors. While it is certainly not okay on our part, can't we just wait until we have them fixed in order not to break a so high number of pages? @all: if somebody knows how to handle this stuff and could lend a hand (ie: a bot, a script, etc.) it'd be appreciated. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ping User:SSastry (WMF). /Johan (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I responded on the phab task. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MarcoAurelio: BR filed at Meta:Requests for bot status/Fluxbot 3. — xaosflux Talk 23:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Approved on my side, unless people object. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This is now done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)