Meta:Babel/Archives/2012-05

TOU banner

I noticed that the banner is coded to be:

{{{introtext}}} <a href="{{{url}}}?utm_source=TOU_top">{{{text-tou}}}</a>{{{bodytext}}} <a href="{{{url2}}}?utm_source=TOU_top">{{{text2}}}</a>

There is a hard coded space between introtext and the first link, and another one after the bodytext, and impossible to be removed by translation. It creates a problem for languages that do not separate words by spaces. Now the CentralNotice banner appears on TOP of ALL Wikimedia pages. That extra space will look very ugly and unprofessional. In order to minimize the work, is it possible to create a separate banner that is used exclusively for languages that do not need the spaces (I'm referring to zh and most of its varients here)? Bencmq (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Or remove the spaces from code (seems there are 3 active banners), add spaces into introtext and bodytext so everything remains the same, and remove the spaces wherever it's unwanted? Bencmq (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm more then happy to have a varient banner, I think that is likely to cause the least issues both with the change and future use of the code. I will put that up as soon as I can. Is it just all zh variants? Jalexander (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all zh varients except zh-min-nan. I believe languages such as Japanese are also affected, but I don't speak those languages so can't say for sure. (side note: please remove the space just before the second link as well :) thank you very much.)Bencmq (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Meta talk:Translation administrators

Please comment at Meta talk:Translation administrators for the proposed process for requesting the translation administrator user right, the length of time for which it will be granted, and who will be able to grant/revoke the right. Thanks. The Helpful One 14:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Enable WikiLove on Meta

I went to give some stewards some wikilove, and noticed it isn't enabled. How would the community feel about having it enabled? --Ryan Lane (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

While I suppose I don't have anything against it, why do we need it? When did writing "thank you" stop being used as a customary form of expressing gratitude? Go ahead and enable it I guess, but I don't see the point. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to use barnstars and such, and it's much harder to know which templates to include and such. WikiLove makes everything way easier.--Ryan Lane (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Matters of personal style ... and the existence of templates. :-) I assume the question is whether there are any objections to copying the template into meta space. Of course I don't know how many sub-templates that might require. (I recently installed my own copy of mediawiki software and have discovered just how much work installing one template can be.) But I am not familiar with any previous discussion of such things on meta, so etc etc. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  mw:WikiLove Jeremyb (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Useful and fun. Those who prefer a simple "thank you" can still use that. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see any harm in enabling it. While there isn't a good argument to have it, there isn't one against it either. It would make giving stroopwafel a lot easier, and we meta-pedians do love our stroopwafels. Thanks Ryan. Theo10011 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I do not oppose, it makes no harm. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Based on Commons it just leads to a load of folk playing with the toy. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose: barnstars can always be used, but WikiLove tends to impose the usage of some barnstars used elsewhere, altering the local wiki culture. I don't see enough usage of barnstars here to judge what could be considered an acceptable custom configuration, so I'd just remove more or less all defaults and leave full freedom, but then it's better to avoid the overhead of the tool. Nemo 17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Herbythyme above. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 18:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC) PS: agreeing too with Guido den Broeder and Tempodivalse.
• I'm with Herby and Nemo. Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support for wikistroopwafels. And love. And . –SJ talk   09:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Support crosswikiness. WikiLove exists elsewhere, so why not have it here too? Rd232 (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Makes Meta look like a game. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the comments by Vittuzzu below and Nemo_bis above. Meta-Wiki is not a social media site, nor a game; "WikiLove" is just a distraction. There are many more important things to worry about, such as the hundreds of untranslated messages and unresolved technical issues. If you really want to give thanks, it's much more sincere and personal to write your own message instead of clicking a button and having a robot do it. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose The purpose of WikiLove is editor retention, something not important on Meta.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Instead of voting, perhaps people can take a few minutes to examine the root problem (that Ryan is having)? What about making WikiLove a gadget or something that people can opt in to using? Or is the entire idea objectionable? Saying "well people might play with it" is a bit silly. It was designed to be enticing: it's a red heart.

But, as Nemo notes, the technology could be modified and still have some usefulness; you could even keep a few of the default templates. Or better templates could be made to fit Meta-Wiki and its ... quirkiness.

Would this be a more reasonable approach? It looks like WikiLove already has an attached user preference. We could just set a reasonable default. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what problem is Ryan having. On Meta we don't have all those templates en.wiki has; if you want to give a barnstar you just take a suitable image and add a text, you don't need anything else after all. Nemo 08:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer beer. It is a change of cultural approach than currently exists, though I note that there are numbers of people who like it, numbers who don't, and those who are ambivalent. If it can be gadgetised rather than having it sticking out like dogs' balls, then maybe it is okay. billinghurst sDrewth 14:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear!_{(re: "gadgetised rather than having it sticking out like dogs' balls" )} -- Proofreader77 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Beer is ok, but kittens are good too – as between-meal snacks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Something is going wrong if we waste our time on these useless things when technical emergencies lie in the fog of oblivion. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  +1 (Vito's comment). —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 16:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  -1. Flipping a switch like this is not a big deal, if the community wants it. Rd232 (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed. Get the more urgent things fixed firstly. If someone wants to thank someone, then just write a personal statement. -Barras talk 11:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on WikiLove since I haven't seen it in my wiki interaction. So I'm neutral. I love to see people drop flowers, cakes and something good on my talk. I prefer diversity. If introduction of Wikilove led that all that fancy turned into mere heart marks automatically generated, it would be rather shabby. On the other hand, if it is sort of gadget which allows us to select our preferable tokens either Wikilove or WikiThanks or whatsoever, it would be more than useful. I don't know if the function in discussion enables such modification though. --Aphaia (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow global sysops to make global blocks

The following discussion is closed: No point. Self-withdrawal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why global sysops shouldn't be allowed to make global blocks. Sometimes a few global sysops have to wait while cross-wiki abuse occurs just because a steward isn't present to make a global block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Steward coverage is pretty good on the one hand, on the other the global block is completely foreign to the whole concept of GS (having admin powers on a strictly limited set of wikis) as it affects all wikis. To implement such a thing in any case you would need to go thru the whole shenanigans of a central notice everywhere, wikimedia-wide vote, etc.. Also, global sysop is as you might have noticed, not a big deal. Global blocks are, and we'd have to question future and current GS on their understanding of IPs, rangeblocks, when to block and when not to, as blocking the wrong IPs wikimedia-wide would cause great problems that might not be noticed immediately. So no, it's not a good idea. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

سلام من می خواستم زبان لری را به ویکیپدیا اضافه کنم لطفا کمک کنید