Hi,
I would like to point your attention to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172. To me, this seems like a bypassing of the LangCom.
What do you all think?
Martin
Hello!
I don’t really see how it is a bypassing of LangCom, as such an import wouldn’t normally be done and isn’t related to the status of the language or project. The question it raises, on whether « combinations » of wikis should be allowed, would be worth holding, and so that deployment should be paused.
I would be open to it anyways with the Wiktionary community already a subset of the Wikipedia community in that language, and I’d hesitate to overrule a community.
Étienne
Le 7 mars 2020 à 15:32, Martin Urbanec martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz a écrit :
Hi,
I would like to point your attention to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172. To me, this seems like a bypassing of the LangCom.
What do you all think?
Martin
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org mailto:sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
Hey,
I just read bugreporter’s comment on the task.
It looks like pseudo-wiktionaries within wikipedia’s have been encouraged as an alternative to closing wikis.
Does that make this more acceptable?
Thanks, Samuel
Hi,
I get where Martin comes from about bypassing LangCom as my impression is that it is due to the lack of ability for a sco.wikt on the count of lack of time users have and how small it would be. We can delay deployment if needed.
I understand why MJL proposed this as it reduces some of the work but having projects have combos might be worth a discussion. I’ll speak to them to see if they want to opine.
Thanks, Samuel
On Saturday, 7 March 2020 20:32:46 UTC, martin.urbanec wrote:
Hi,
I would like to point your attention to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172. To me, this seems like a bypassing of the LangCom.
What do you all think?
Martin
From Etienne in private conversation: "Also, seems like there is a little
precedent for the combination: https://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woat:Start"
And from #wikimedia-operations discussion:
21:51 <Urbanecm> I'm...honestly not sure this (the task itself) is a good idea. When there will be sco.wikt, will we move the namespace there? idk... 21:52 <@Reedy> Will there ever be? 21:52 <@Reedy> Any time soon? :) 21:52 <RhinosF1> Possibly and no 21:53 <RhinosF1> Urbanecm: that’d be a choice between sco.wiki and the new sco.wikt 21:53 <Urbanecm> Reedy: idk - up to the langcom IG 21:54 <RhinosF1> Urbanecm: someone asked during the RfC and MJL said: 21:54 <RhinosF1> Wiktionary isn't really a "project" as much as it is a set of projects. We have English Wiktionary and Simple English Wiktionary, yes. Would there ever be a Scots Wiktionary? It is highly unlikely. It'd be the third (and smallest) Anglic language Wiktionary and would require we split our time in half. 21:54 <RhinosF1> There's also a lot more already established oddities if you look for them. We have a news section despite not being a newspaper, and we have a portal system despite not being a directory. Also, English Wikisource currently serves as the repository for all texts in Scots despite the two being separate languages. Things aren't cut and dry. 21:55 → mvolz___ joined (~mvolz@94.119.64.6) 21:55 <Urbanecm> well, creating the namespace would also require someone working at content there and someone at enwikt/simplewikt. The news argument is compelling, through. 21:56 <Urbanecm> once again, I'm really not sure on this one - since i was mentioned, just wanted to comment on that 21:58 <RhinosF1> It’s a nice idea and I fully get the rationale behind it. It’s probably better than creating a wiki to be barely used and cleaner than incubator. I imagine if it was there on wiki it might be more encouraging to work on and it’s one admin team etc.. doing everything so less work 21:58 <RhinosF1> One vandal hits two wikis means twice the work. They hit only one and there’s half the work. Half the areas to monitor etc.. 21:58 <Urbanecm> i see
so 7. 3. 2020 v 22:20 odesílatel RhinosF1 rhinosf1@gmail.com napsal:
Hi,
I get where Martin comes from about bypassing LangCom as my impression is that it is due to the lack of ability for a sco.wikt on the count of lack of time users have and how small it would be. We can delay deployment if needed.
I understand why MJL proposed this as it reduces some of the work but having projects have combos might be worth a discussion. I’ll speak to them to see if they want to opine.
Thanks, Samuel
On Saturday, 7 March 2020 20:32:46 UTC, martin.urbanec wrote:
Hi,
I would like to point your attention to
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172. To me, this seems like a bypassing of the LangCom.
What do you all think?
Martin
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
Hello,
El sáb., 7 mar. 2020 a las 21:32, Martin Urbanec (martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz) escribió:
Hi,
I would like to point your attention to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172. To me, this seems like a bypassing of the LangCom.
What do you all think?
Martin
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
I think I agree with letting them have the namespace absent any technical barrier that would make this disruptive to the Wikipedia project itself.
In favour:
- I don't think we should be creating new projects only to find they're abandoned few months after creation, leaving the bulk of maintenance to global sysops and stewards; because LangCom won't close them afterwards (inactivity is no longer a valid reason to lock a project). We already have enough of those in that shape.
- It's also easier to monitor one wiki rather than two, and if sco.wiktionary is not and has not been able to get out of the Incubator (the Meta-Wiki request dates from 2007) due to lack of continuous activity or some other criterion there's no point in creating a separate project as it'll likely become abandoned or inactive.
- Nothing makes me think at this stage that the communities of sco.wikipedia and sco.wiktionary would be different either, as such I'm not sure we should be splitting them in two different sites.
- We also have the precedent of als.* and mo.* getting merged not so long ago https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T169450.
- I also think we can set `$wgCapitalLinkOverrides` as true just for the Define namespace right?
On the other hand and unless I am mistaken, they won't be able to add interwikis via Wikidata to words in the Define namespace. You can't add an interwiki to the Wiktionary section of a Wikidata item if the page is not hosted on a Wiktionary. That said, I think that'd be a minor inconvenience.
Just my two cents.
Best regards.
Okay, I'm now convinced. Thanks everyone for their opinions.
Martin
ne 8. 3. 2020 v 14:34 odesílatel Marco A. strigiwm@gmail.com napsal:
Hello,
El sáb., 7 mar. 2020 a las 21:32, Martin Urbanec (martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz) escribió:
Hi,
I would like to point your attention to
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172. To me, this seems like a bypassing of the LangCom.
What do you all think?
Martin
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
I think I agree with letting them have the namespace absent any technical barrier that would make this disruptive to the Wikipedia project itself.
In favour:
- I don't think we should be creating new projects only to find
they're abandoned few months after creation, leaving the bulk of maintenance to global sysops and stewards; because LangCom won't close them afterwards (inactivity is no longer a valid reason to lock a project). We already have enough of those in that shape.
- It's also easier to monitor one wiki rather than two, and if
sco.wiktionary is not and has not been able to get out of the Incubator (the Meta-Wiki request dates from 2007) due to lack of continuous activity or some other criterion there's no point in creating a separate project as it'll likely become abandoned or inactive.
- Nothing makes me think at this stage that the communities of
sco.wikipedia and sco.wiktionary would be different either, as such I'm not sure we should be splitting them in two different sites.
- We also have the precedent of als.* and mo.* getting merged not so
long ago https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T169450.
- I also think we can set `$wgCapitalLinkOverrides` as true just for
the Define namespace right?
On the other hand and unless I am mistaken, they won't be able to add interwikis via Wikidata to words in the Define namespace. You can't add an interwiki to the Wiktionary section of a Wikidata item if the page is not hosted on a Wiktionary. That said, I think that'd be a minor inconvenience.
Just my two cents.
Best regards.
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
I'd like to hear from Étienne first but if nothing otherwise suggests an issue. I think we should proceed with SWAT on Monday.
I'll talk to MJL tonight about whether they want CaptialLinkOverrides.
Thanks, Samuel
On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 13:37, Martin Urbanec martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz wrote:
Okay, I'm now convinced. Thanks everyone for their opinions.
Martin
ne 8. 3. 2020 v 14:34 odesílatel Marco A. strigiwm@gmail.com napsal:
Hello,
El sáb., 7 mar. 2020 a las 21:32, Martin Urbanec (martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz) escribió:
Hi,
I would like to point your attention to
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172. To me, this seems like a bypassing of the LangCom.
What do you all think?
Martin
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
I think I agree with letting them have the namespace absent any technical barrier that would make this disruptive to the Wikipedia project itself.
In favour:
- I don't think we should be creating new projects only to find
they're abandoned few months after creation, leaving the bulk of maintenance to global sysops and stewards; because LangCom won't close them afterwards (inactivity is no longer a valid reason to lock a project). We already have enough of those in that shape.
- It's also easier to monitor one wiki rather than two, and if
sco.wiktionary is not and has not been able to get out of the Incubator (the Meta-Wiki request dates from 2007) due to lack of continuous activity or some other criterion there's no point in creating a separate project as it'll likely become abandoned or inactive.
- Nothing makes me think at this stage that the communities of
sco.wikipedia and sco.wiktionary would be different either, as such I'm not sure we should be splitting them in two different sites.
- We also have the precedent of als.* and mo.* getting merged not so
long ago https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T169450.
- I also think we can set `$wgCapitalLinkOverrides` as true just for
the Define namespace right?
On the other hand and unless I am mistaken, they won't be able to add interwikis via Wikidata to words in the Define namespace. You can't add an interwiki to the Wiktionary section of a Wikidata item if the page is not hosted on a Wiktionary. That said, I think that'd be a minor inconvenience.
Just my two cents.
Best regards.
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
I support the migration.
Le 8 mars 2020 à 10:09, RhinosF1 - rhinosf1@gmail.com a écrit :
I'd like to hear from Étienne first but if nothing otherwise suggests an issue. I think we should proceed with SWAT on Monday.
I'll talk to MJL tonight about whether they want CaptialLinkOverrides.
Thanks, Samuel
On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 13:37, Martin Urbanec <martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz mailto:martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz> wrote: Okay, I'm now convinced. Thanks everyone for their opinions.
Martin
ne 8. 3. 2020 v 14:34 odesílatel Marco A. <strigiwm@gmail.com mailto:strigiwm@gmail.com> napsal: Hello,
El sáb., 7 mar. 2020 a las 21:32, Martin Urbanec (<martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz mailto:martin.urbanec@wikimedia.cz>) escribió:
Hi,
I would like to point your attention to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T247172. To me, this seems like a bypassing of the LangCom.
What do you all think?
Martin
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org mailto:sitereq-l%2Bunsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
I think I agree with letting them have the namespace absent any technical barrier that would make this disruptive to the Wikipedia project itself.
In favour:
- I don't think we should be creating new projects only to find
they're abandoned few months after creation, leaving the bulk of maintenance to global sysops and stewards; because LangCom won't close them afterwards (inactivity is no longer a valid reason to lock a project). We already have enough of those in that shape.
- It's also easier to monitor one wiki rather than two, and if
sco.wiktionary is not and has not been able to get out of the Incubator (the Meta-Wiki request dates from 2007) due to lack of continuous activity or some other criterion there's no point in creating a separate project as it'll likely become abandoned or inactive.
- Nothing makes me think at this stage that the communities of
sco.wikipedia and sco.wiktionary would be different either, as such I'm not sure we should be splitting them in two different sites.
- We also have the precedent of als.* and mo.* getting merged not so
long ago <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T169450 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T169450>.
- I also think we can set `$wgCapitalLinkOverrides` as true just for
the Define namespace right?
On the other hand and unless I am mistaken, they won't be able to add interwikis via Wikidata to words in the Define namespace. You can't add an interwiki to the Wiktionary section of a Wikidata item if the page is not hosted on a Wiktionary. That said, I think that'd be a minor inconvenience.
Just my two cents.
Best regards.
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org mailto:sitereq-l%2Bunsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org mailto:sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org mailto:sitereq-l+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.