User talk:Josve05a/Archives/2016/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tech News: 2016-37

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The Wikimedia Commons app for Android can now show nearby places that need photos. [1]
  • <maplink> and <mapframe> can now use geodata from Open Street Map if Open Street Map has defined a region and given it an ID in Wikidata. You can use this to draw on the map and add information. [2][3]

Changes this week

  • The RevisionSlider will be available as a beta feature on all wikis from 13 September. This will make it easier to navigate between diffs in the page history. [4]
  • A new user right will allow most users to change the content model of pages. [5][6]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 September. It will be on all wikis from 15 September (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 13 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #226

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Lowered relevance threshold for ArticlePlaceholder search results from 3 to 2 sitelinks (T144188)
    • Added 'otk' as an available language for monolingual text values (T137809)
    • Working on making it possible to paste partial URLs into the site selector (T144310)
    • A Grafana board now tracks general usage and error metrics of the Query Service UI
    • Made progress on showing editors on all Wikimedia projects which articles on their project use data from a given Wikidata item. We will also show in the page information (action=info) which items a given article uses. Also worked on showing which projects use a given item in the page information. (T103091)
    • Added meta information to the html header of item pages (T88475)
    • Made progress on making ArticlePlaceholders indexable for search engines (T144590)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 10:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #227

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
Quality process on Wikidata

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 16:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-38

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will hopefully be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 September. It will be on all wikis from 22 September (calendar). This is the version that was meant to go out last week.

Meetings

Future changes

  • Wikidata will start working on adding support for Wiktionary. The Wikidata development team is now taking one last look at the development plan. [9]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

Has it ever occured to you to have a low-key discussion rather than invite a load of bloody lemmings along for the ride via a bot? I see you've started the discussion, but you don't seem to want to "discuss" any of the points raised. Why is that? Is it your style to open up an RfC, create carnage, and then bugger off back into the shadows? CassiantoTalk 18:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I dis it as part of being an OTRS-agent, in response to a ticket. (Cureently night time soon here. next time you want to call editors bloody lemmings, please di it during daytime ;) (t) Josve05a (c) 19:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
An unintelligible answer was what I was expecting. I was just curious to know why you started yet another bullshit RfC on an Featured Article on a laborious subject already covered elsewhere. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I suspect. How many FA's have you written, incidentally? CassiantoTalk 19:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
OTRS agent (verify): Following a ticket inquiry, I started an RfC to get a more clearer consensus by a broader range of users on the 'issue'. Please do refrain from personal attacks (bloody lemmings), and ad hominem (how many ... have you) arguments. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Josve05a, please could you supply the ticket number? I have commented on the article talk page so please check there. I am unfamiliar with the OTRS system but shouldn't an indication have been given that you were initiating the RfC on behalf of someone else? As this is a very contentious subject with the strong possibility of being raised in yet another ArbCom case, could I also ask if you did any additional checking with other OTRS volunteers before raising the RfC? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I could do a search, but I didn't do it "on behalf", but following a ticket, sicne I myself found the consensus was unclear, or that not a real "discussion" had been had, only small discussions on multiple times, without a real "closure"/result. Looking at artile history it was clear that opinions differ (since users keep adding it). I don't care one way or another, just wanted clear consensus be archived, and that we then could add it as a FAQ-thingy. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sagaciousphil: I believe the RfC can be closed per SNOW... (t) Josve05a (c) 08:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Could I suggest that rather than waiting for someone else to close it, as per Ending RfCs, you simply close it by withdrawing it as this would offer a quicker solution? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Josve05a. You've put "Consensus at withdrawal seems to be to not include an infobox for various reasons." Just wanted to stress my !vote was simply not to include an infobox that has wrong or disputed facts. Sorry, can't stop now, as am buggering back off into the lemming shadows. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Am I missing something cultural, or why does people so damn focused about lemmings recently...(t) Josve05a (c) 09:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Josve05a, see the FAC where a unanimous consensus was formed. CassiantoTalk 11:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, it seems that nothing has changed in the intervening two years and "enough's enough"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
You should not be able to override an FAC consensus as that version (with or without an infobox) was the version that passed FAC. FA's, in terms of grammar, sourcing, images, etc.. can and should be improved upon. An infobox is not a widely recognised "improvement", as I'm sure you'll know; it is a stylistic preference for some, but not all, and therefore should never be added to an infoboxless FA. Likewise, taken away. Oh, and yes, enough is enough. I'm growing bored with the constant lemming references now. You are boardering on harassment with the stalking, linking, pings, and "thanks". Enough, is indeed, enough. CassiantoTalk 12:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you may well be right about adding things to FAs, Cass. I guess that must be clearly written down in policy somewhere. But great to see you have lost none of your sense of humour. As you know, I never make jokes, I believe that Wikipedia is deadly serious and only edit to make personal attacks on other (less intelligent) editors. But am now understanding why you probably need a holiday from this place so badly. Adios. Apologies, Josve05a, for the intrusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC) I pinged you??
You know me well enough to know that I've never much cared much for Wikipedia's policies and edit under my own say-so, and of my own inclination. If someone is being a dickhead, I will tell them, regardless of what some elaborately named do-gooder wrote down 11 years ago and who has not been seen or heard of since. Our policies are outdated bullshit. If you want to get rid of me quicker, Martin, why not hurry up the Burke and Hare FAC? CassiantoTalk 13:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"How very Burke and Hare you!" As if I'd ever lower myself to edit in article mainspace. But you stil think I want "to get rid of you"?? Sounds like our policies may need a little attention. Without agreed policies we could all just do as we please, couldn't we? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Josve05a, I have a few questions. I was surprised to the see the RfC opened (and then closed) so I came here to see whether there was anything I could glean and see you opened it response to an OTRS ticket. Can you supply some more information please. Specifically, can you tell me when the ticket was submitted and whether it specifically asked for an RfC or whether it requested an infobox be added? Also, have you ever seen a ticket before asking for the addition of an infobox to an article, or the opening of an RfC? I was a little surprised because I hadn't noticed you ever editing the article in the past, so at least that's explained. I think this an interesting situation and will amend my comment at ARCA accordingly. Thanks in advance. Victoria (tk) 16:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The RfC doesn't seem to be compatible with OTRS best practices - "Most requests relating to usual editorial matters are referred to normal on-wiki processes" except where issues such as defamation or privacy are a concern, which doesn't appear to be the case here. I'd also suggest you review the instructions for opening RfCs before doing so again, as even if the RfC had run for its full length it would not have been valid. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-39

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • If your wiki wants numerical sorting in categories you can request it after a community decision. See how to request it. [10]
  • When you edit text and mention a new username they are notified if you add your signature. Before this only happened under certain conditions. [11]
  • Users are notified if they are mentioned in a section where you add your own signature even if you edit more than one section. Before, users were not notified if you edited more than one section in one edit. [12]

Problems

Changes this week

  • There will be no new MediaWiki version this week. [15]

Meetings

Future changes

  • Abandoned tools on Tool Labs could be taken over by other developers. There is a new discussion on Meta about this. It will be discussed until 12 October and then voted on. [16]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #228

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 21:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Josve05a/Archives/2016/September&oldid=1079754238"