Meta:Proposed page moves/Archives/2016
Latest comment: 8 years ago by MarcoAurelio
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
The following discussion is closed: Moved by Matiia.--Syum90 (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Reason: "tg-cyrl" is redundant and unused commonly. Also needs to move translation units (preliminarily).--Kaganer (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Matiia (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Kaganer (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Grants:APG to Grants:Annual Plans, including all subpages
The following discussion is closed: Proposer resigned moving the page due to technical complications.--Syum90 (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Please could the pages currently starting with "Grants:APG" be moved to start with "Grants:Annual Plans" instead, in order to avoid using the possibly confusing acronym, while not repeating 'Grants' in the address? This is quite a large request, as there are quite a few subpages, so it would probably need to be a bot move. If "round1" and "round2" in APG page names could be tweaked to be "round 1" and "round 2" respectively at the same time, that would be a bonus. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since Winifred has endorsed this, I am happy to endorse this too if you think it would be an improvement in navigability for you and applicants. Feel free to go ahead with this, if you would like to do it! Thanks, as always, for watching out for KLove (WMF) (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- It seems I can't make this move myself - I just tried doing so, but the pages were moved without leaving a redirect, which broke many things (oops!). I've reverted that move. So I'm going to leave this here in the hope that someone can do this move properly. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because some pages are in the translate extension, it is not possible to move page with leaving a redirect. Which means that redirects must be crated by hand (we are talking about 1140 pages to move) or by a script (which seems not to exist). Then after the move all page must be marked again for translation. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @Steinsplitter:. I'm looking at writing a script (using pywikibot) to aid with this move - it looks like movepages.py is a good start (presumably, that's what FuzzyBot uses). I'm not sure whether I'd need a separate bot account or bot flag to run the script here, though - do you know if it would be OK if I ran it semi-automated using my main account? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: movepages.py does not work with the translate extension. You have to write a script which is only creating redirects. Fuzzybot is not a real bot but a extension. I think it schould be okay to do it whiteout bot flag because moves are popping up at the watchlist as well. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Steinsplitter: OK, that should be do-able, I'll have a look into it at the weekend then! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: movepages.py does not work with the translate extension. You have to write a script which is only creating redirects. Fuzzybot is not a real bot but a extension. I think it schould be okay to do it whiteout bot flag because moves are popping up at the watchlist as well. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @Steinsplitter:. I'm looking at writing a script (using pywikibot) to aid with this move - it looks like movepages.py is a good start (presumably, that's what FuzzyBot uses). I'm not sure whether I'd need a separate bot account or bot flag to run the script here, though - do you know if it would be OK if I ran it semi-automated using my main account? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because some pages are in the translate extension, it is not possible to move page with leaving a redirect. Which means that redirects must be crated by hand (we are talking about 1140 pages to move) or by a script (which seems not to exist). Then after the move all page must be marked again for translation. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- It seems I can't make this move myself - I just tried doing so, but the pages were moved without leaving a redirect, which broke many things (oops!). I've reverted that move. So I'm going to leave this here in the hope that someone can do this move properly. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Having had another go at this, I encountered more problems (documented at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T126376 ), so I'm giving up with making this move. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
投票が全てではない
The following discussion is closed: Moved by ツバル: no opposition after 10 days.--Syum90 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- 投票が全てではないは、2008年10月にBletilaさんにより、Don't vote on everythingから翻訳されました。翻訳開始時にはあらゆることに投票を用いないことの名称だったのですが翻訳の途中で現在の名称に変更されています。しかし、元の名称が原文にある「not-every」の表現に対応したものであるのに対して、現在の記事名は「not-every」に対応しておらず適切な翻訳になっていません。そこで、元の記事名に戻すことを提案します。ツバル (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Doneツバル (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Change category name?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I created Category:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees composition controversies. But on reflection, I think it would be better to have the more straightforward Category:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees composition -- that is, without the word "controversies." So, I have two questions:
- Do others agree? and
- If so, is there anything special I need to do to make the change, considering that the original category has translated pages? Can I just move all of them to the new name, or will that mess something up? -Pete F (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good questions, please post the answer somewhere when you've found it. And any special conditions, like "requires translation admin rights", "with your TranslateWiki account", "needs write access on phab:", "requires help by a WMF staff member", or similar. Otherwise, sure, the new name would be neutral/friendly/...
Be..anyone (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC) - Discussion
- Maybe this can be kept as a subcat of the proposed category @Peteforsyth? —MarcoAurelio 12:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio I don't see a big problem with a "controversies" subcat, though it does seem that reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes a controversy. That's why I thought the more neutral name would be a better choice. I don't have a strong preference one way or the other; but after creating the initial category and populating it, it occurred to me I might not have made the best choice. -Pete F (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Moving. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 09:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done I think. I run across some problems due to the translation extension and had to fix some manually. —MarcoAurelio 10:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Moving. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 09:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio I don't see a big problem with a "controversies" subcat, though it does seem that reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes a controversy. That's why I thought the more neutral name would be a better choice. I don't have a strong preference one way or the other; but after creating the initial category and populating it, it occurred to me I might not have made the best choice. -Pete F (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.