Meta:Babel

Note: If you seek language competence template, see Meta:Babel templates.

Hi, I dono what process to use. I was told to post something here so here it is. -- Cat ^chi? 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment (from bot status page): Bot will work on double redirects and commons delinking tasks. Sounds OK. I'll flag if no one objects. Majorly (talk ) 13:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

(OT) I added a note in Requests for bot status --.anaconda 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

OK flagged, I can't imagine there being any problem with this, and it already has bot status elsewhere. Majorly (talk ) 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Note: The name is not standard (it does not contain "bot") but that has been waived elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Now Volapük Wikipedia is more than 100,000 articles. Please move it at http://www.wikipedia.org/ --Flrn 10:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Hello. There is currently no policy for bot access on Meta, so I propose enforcing the new crosswiki standard bot policy on Meta. If we do, a note will be added to the page explaining how to request bot access on Meta.

The page explains what is considered a bot as regards assigning bot flags, and lays out guidelines and rules for use, naming, authorization, edit speed, supervision, et cetera. It is primarily designed to streamline steward processing of such requests on other wikis, though it would also simplify the task for Meta bureaucrats. A further benefit is that the bot policy will be routinely updated to reflect the latest changes to MediaWiki, since it will be applicable on several wikis. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:23:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support this idea. I am behind on making a subpage for requests themselves, which I do think is a good idea but that there is such a page is not contradictory to adopting this policy, but rather complimentary. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Reply
• Support. In addition requesting bot flags on mass number of wikis should be as simplified. -- Cat ^chi? 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  This policy will simplify that for linterlanguage linking bots in particular. On many wikis, this will no longer require a new discussion if the bot is already proven. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:25:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also support this proposal, as it will simplify the bot process here which is currently a big mess. —O (说 • 喝) 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

• Support. It will clear up any confusions because I've seen a lot of comments of people not knowing what to do so that would probably clear it up too. --Skunkmaster II 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Call the question. I don't see anyone saying they have a big issue with this and it just seems like a good idea. Many many other wikis already use this. I suggest if there is no dissent in a few days (5?... 7?) we consider we have consensus and consider it adopted here. ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

'Tis policy now. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the new wiki project proposals are dating back to summer 2006, making it impossible to contact the proposer about the proposal because he/she isn't really watching the proposal anymore. Also, some of these proposals have 30+ users supporting it, while some others have none. Is there a set criteria for promoting and/or removing these proposals? I have yet to find any.

If not, I propose that we give any and all future proposals 3 months (1 month for projects nominated beyond 3 months ago at time of passage) to accumulate 20 or more users wishing to join the project. Also, that proposal must not violate any policy concerning project proposals here on meta.

• If a project hits the 20 user threshold, then that project is given space on the Wikimedia Incubator (or some other "incubator") for 1 year (maybe more, discretion can even be used here) to grow and develop the new wiki.

If the wiki stalls while in incubation, the wiki may be removed by an administrator.

If, toward the end of the incubation period, the wiki fails to maintain a sustainable community, usually of about 100-150+ active users, then the wiki may be removed by the board.

• Afterwards, the final proposal for inclusion as a Wikimedia project would be brought before the entire Wikimedia community. Diez2 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Currently, incubator is only for new languages, not for new projects. Proposing a seed wiki for new projects is in some ways itself a new project. Angela 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Agreed. And if I recall correctly, Incubator made it their policy recently not to accept "new project" test wiki pages. From the reason Angela pointed, I think it making a sense. --Aphaia 09:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Ok, maybe not the Wikimedia Incubator, some other space on Wikimedia (like I said, some other "incubator") where it can grow and maintain a viable community. Seed wikis were deprecated when the incubator came along, and I don't know whether the community wants to resurrect them. Do you? Diez2 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

• Furthermore, you do have to admit that there needs to be a better system in place to move these proposals along the line. Right now, it seems that the current page is where proposals go to die. 50 people have shown support for the "Geneology Wiki," and though I'm not necessarily supporting the proposal, something needs to be done about it; it can't just sit there forever. Diez2 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

  I would like to point out "so-and-so people support it" is not a good reason to assume that the Foundation says "go ahead". As for Geneology wikis, Wikimedia once rejected that idea in the late 2004 and let the other website pick the idea of geneology wiki. It is unlikely for the Foundation to host such a wiki again. There would be many random people bringing their idea and try to have the Foundation to fund their ideas, but it is not necessarily for us to do something for them. Serious proposals like Wikinews or Wikiversity have been considered and launched. And since I have seen no demand and community necessity to host those projects even as experiments, I am not sure if we should have such "seed-wikis", specially there are many kinds of free-hosted scratch pad wikis run by for-profit parties and after we saw some people shamelessly have tried to host advertisement on the Incubator. --Aphaia 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

  Ok, I agree with you about the "so-and-so people support it" argument. Throw out the proposal. I also agree that if a proposal is against what the Foundation stands for, then it should be rejected. However, we cannot just say that this proposal cannot go through, and then do nothing about it. The Geneology Wiki proposal has been around since March 2006. We should set up a formal system that allows us to formally reject a proposal (or accept one). We can e-mail the proposer (or just leave a note on his/her talk page) saying that the proposal has been rejected and has been stored in an archive page. Also, the Foundation needs to step up here and start commenting on these proposals. The proposal page is so cluttered with proposals that it becomes impossible to read them all in one sitting. Furthermore, I don't see that any of these proposals have gone anywhere in the last 6 months. Like I've been saying, there has to be some way to move these proposals down the line, as in reject or accept them in a far more timely manner. Diez2 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

  I don't oppose a new acceptance system in the community level, but as for the foundation level system, sorry I disagree. I don't want and don't think it necessary that the Foundation involved into the those things in this phase. It may increase their workload. Formal acceptance or rejection are unnecessary in my thought - most of proposals are self-abandoned and we need not to get involve the Foundation before that. I prefer to see them working on more crucial things - financial or technical infrastructure, good public relation or setting a system for quality control of existing things. --Aphaia 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

  So are we saying that "everything that can be invented has been invented?" The Proposals page exists so that new projects might have a chance, albeit extremely small, to become a Wikimedia project. If you do want to minimize the Foundation's workload, then you can also minimize their involvement. For example, only the proposals accepted by the community will be sent to the Foundation (as I see it here and here, the board of trustees only got involved in accepting the creation of Wikiversity after the community entered into an extremely extensive discussion), and for the most part, proposals are actually rejected, because not many people support the idea. As for the abandoned proposals, we can e-mail the proposer giving him/her 1 week to respond, or else the proposal will be removed. We can remove many upon many of proposals this way, and at the very least clean up the page. Diez2 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Your proposal of removing abandoning proposals seems good. You could write it down and make it as policy of that page perhaps? --Aphaia 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

I would like to point out Wikiversity didn't come from the proposal page. It has come rather from Wikibooks, one of our existing projects. There had been a co-called sub-project since 2004 (or even before while I am not sure). In 2006 some of board members publicly spoke about the possible launching of Wikiversity and there was already a dedicated committee for launching the project. We just needed a right time and preparation to start it. So it is not the case of the proposals you are talking about, I suppose?

Honestly I don't know any project launched from the proposal page you are concerned. It hasn't been the official acceptance point of the Foundation, rather a community discussion page as well as other meta pages. That is why I think it an overreaction to ask the Foundation for intervention, saying no or yes directly. --Aphaia 03:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

In this case, should we move for deletion of this page? The whole point of this page is to suggest new projects the Foundation would take up. However, if what you are saying is correct, then no project since 2004 (when the page was created) has ever been taken from this page. Thus, lack of involvement from the Foundation defeats the purpose of having this. Diez2 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

It is still doing that. But the number of proposals is daunting. However, good vines need no bush. 85.211.128.219 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Do you mean the Foundation is still looking at proposals on the page? Diez2 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

I haven't taken the page as a proposal for the Foundation, but rather for the community, while I don't know any project which appeared at first on that page. Realized projects seemed to come through other routes (mailing list or activity on an existing project), even the had their own page on meta at last. Also as far as I know, those realized projects were discussed elsewhere (like incubator, which we talked about for a long time, when we had some troubles about test-wikipedias on meta), but those "projects" were rarely interests of the community. Some of them were posted to foundation-l, but most of them are just unreplied. The foundation should take care of those ideas the Wikimedia community takes no action, even a gesture of denial?

So, it would be inappropriate and inefficient for us to expect them to watch the page regularly, while they are snowed with mails, phones and faxes. Rather we can think the proposal page just for brainstorming which may benefits also existing projects, I suppose, and as long as they are remaining healthy brainstorming, I see no need to alter the current situation and increasing our workload. In my observatin there is no serious problem we need to involve the Foundation. The community doesn't pay attention to those project proposals - that's all, isn't it? And I don't find any good reason the Foudation should be involved into this particular matter Wikimedia community has no interest. --Aphaia 09:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Why is there not mor languages for this wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arceus fan (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify your question. Cheers! Siebrand 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Why was the "search" moved way down below "beyond the web" and "community" can someone PLEASE move the search up higher. It is obvious that "beyond the web" and "community" will not be used as much as the search feature please move it. Odessaukrain 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

It didn't move. Search box is placed just over the toolbox. It is impossible, at least for local admins, to place it in a higher row, unless remove two new boxes. --Aphaia 07:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

For meta often functions as a foundation wiki where everybody can edit. I use hot key alt-F and I do not need to care where search bar is. Hillgentleman 07:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

the two new boxes can go below the toolbox correct? Who added the two toolboxes, and where can I message them? I have my own wiki, and know this is possible, if you have the right permissions.

alt-F works thanks User:Hillgentleman. Odessaukrain 21:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Reply

Is it normal to link pornography without a reason and without a warning like Czech arbitrator and sysop Che did?[1] —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 10:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia isn't censored. Majorly (talk ) 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Like any link on Wikipedia, it's appropriate if inserted in the right context. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker . 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

I agree that when you write about pornography, you may include some graphic link, always noticed as such. But this is completely diffent thing. cs:Wikipedie:Hlasování o smazání/Jiří Macich was an AfD about a blogger, not a pornographer. There was discussion about his notability and Che without a warning put the link to pornography. What if somebody opened this link in a public place? —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 13:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Reply

Have you bothered asking Che why the link was added? I don't speak Czech, so I can't really tell how relevant it was, but I don't think we should concern ourselves with every "what if..." scenario possible. EVula // talk // 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Reply

No, it would be useless. I wrote him several e-mails before, he never replied to me. I asked several Czech wikipedians to repair it, they ignored me as well. It is completely useless to try repair anything in cs: by Czech wikipedians.

It is totally irrelevant. Jiří Macich has nothing in common with pornography. He may be not notable, but why pornography site should be a comparative? Why pornography is not marked as such? What about if somebody would include Che's link into the article en:Russia? Or its discussion? —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Reply

• Communication
• Multilingualism
• Meta-Wiki organisation