This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before youpost a new comment please note the following:
You can comment here in any language.
This forum is primarily for discussion ofMeta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, seeMeta:Babylon and its discussion page.
For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), seeUser language.
To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use theWikimedia Forum.
Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the majorWikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
However, this actually created several problems including the broken page transclutions with malfunctioned language converter tags exposed and using the workaround ofTemplate:Conversion-zh,Template:LC zh. More breakages could be found onphab:T328838.
More briefly for thezh part: The old configuration can only translate intozh while the new configuration can translate intozh-hans (forzh-Hans-CN,zh-Hans-MY,zh-Hans-SG),zh-hant (forzh-Hant-TW) andzh-hk (forzh-Hant-HK,zh-Hant-MO).
Without using /zh-hans, /zh-hant, /zh-hk, we have to pass the language tag every time using message bundle messages.
-- Wrapping all of them under /zh using {{LC zh|, without using /zh-hans, /zh-hant, /zh-hktmb.new(mb_page_title,lang_tag):t(message_key):params(lang_tag):plain()
-- Using separated /zh-hans, /zh-hant, /zh-hk, we no longer need to pass the language tag :params( lang_tag ) every timetmb.new(mb_page_title,lang_tag):t(message_key):plain()
With this change, every Lua module using translation bundles can be simplified:
As I didn't look into two models, is there any major difference? If yes, would you briefly describe the difference please?Hamish16:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
More briefly for thezh part:
The old configuration can only translate intozh, while:
The new configuration can translate intozh-hans (forzh-Hans-CN,zh-Hans-MY,zh-Hans-SG),zh-hant (forzh-Hant-TW) andzh-hk (forzh-Hant-HK,zh-Hant-MO).
Applications for the committees open on October 30, 2025. Applications for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on December 11, 2025. Learn how to apply byvisiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cstwikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
Latest comment:24 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
October 2025 education newsletter released for translation. Please help our readers to read education newsletter in their native language. The latest education newsletter is ready for translation:here Newsletter headlines link for translation:here, to read individual articles check out:Category:Education/Newsletter/October 2025. Your support in making this newsletter multilingual means a lot. Thanks for helping share knowledge across borders! Regards,ZI Jony(Talk)06:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Depth metrics - analysis and proposal to change it
Latest comment:9 hours ago10 comments3 people in discussion
DannyS712 seems to have gone entirely inactive.User:DannyS712/EasyResolve is a very important very useful and highly-used simple gadget used across Wikimedia projects including Commons, Metawiki, English Wikipedia, etc.
However, until this is part of the default discussion page UI / the Reply tool, the gadget remains quite important. By marking threads as solved the community can focus on unsolved topics and tasks so these get more attention and people keep checking discussion pages because they're not overflowing chaotically with already-solved threads and taking lots of time to go through.
Now there are several changes that would be great to add to it, such as including a link to the closed section in the edit summary, an unarchive button in archive pages, and more pages likec:Commons:Categorization requests that apparently need a change to the tool to have the button display there.
What could or needs to be done to make it possible for other developers to change the code?
What would need to be done so that the tool can be enabled by simply checking something in the Preferences under "Gadgets"?
How can the prior two things be achieved without breaking the script for those who already have it installed but also enable updating their script – maybe by redirect the .js page to the new place of the actively-developed .js? Alternatively, one could ping all the users who have the tool installed to explain how they can install the actively-developed version.
Could somebody here continue its development or where would be a good place to ask? The change requests for the script can be found inUser talk:DannyS712/EasyResolve.
Thanks for the info about the fork. That doesn't fully answer the question but maybe I'll ask these things there. I don't know why these scripts are located in user space instead of some proper meta page. Doesn't this mean that only that one user can edit the js and isn't that a problem?
I don't see why it shouldn't be part of MediaWiki just because a few users may misuse it. The same goes for talk pages: why enable users to post to talk pages when they could post offtopic things or vandalism? Similar and some of the same reasons apply here. Moreover, this was already part of MediaWiki, namely the DiscussionTools that were the default discussion tool on the MediaWiki wiki.Prototyperspective (talk)21:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Prototyperspective: SeeWP:USERSCRIPTS for more information. That few can edit scripts is a feature, not a bug. Regarding misuse, it won't just be "a few users", and some will even intentionally abuse it; as an example, Twinkle is limited to autoconfirmed users for this very reason. Also, note that most wikis don't even have the concept of marking sections as resolved.NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh21:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I know it's important that only few can edit scripts. But I thought wouldn't one want to have more than one single person being able to edit a script such as all interface admins. I don't know which info I'm supposed to find at that Wikipedia page. I can only repeat what I said about Talk pages and the existing mark-as-solved button and would like to add that, as with these two things, problematic edits can be reverted. Okay, if we're talking about limiting this to autoconfirmed users then that's a good point and I strongly support limiting it to autoconfirmed users. That most wikis don't have this important concept is just more reason to add it to the default UI instead of requiring creation of some template and enabling a userscript. If I didn't miscount, 33 wiki projects have it now.Prototyperspective (talk)22:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Prototyperspective: Sorry about the link; apparently I was mistaken about how informational the page was. My point is that scripts are intentionally interface-protected for a reason. To answer your other questions:
One can always makeedit requests, orcreate their own fork. Scripts with multiple maintainers are often, if not always, developed on an external system, like GitHub or GitLab (en:WP:RW/en:WP:UV are two examples), and the synchronization is done automatically.
Redirecting or something to that effect can be done (as withen:User:Lupin/popups.js anden:User:AzaToth/twinkle.js), but often isn't. Users might not like the new changes, and/or they might not trust the new maintainers. A rule of thumb: the more people you ask to do something, the more likely they will do it wrong, especially when the task is something they don't fully understand.
As stated above,User:DannyS712/EasyResolve.js has forks. Either install one of them, or fork it yourself if you find it to be lacking something.
Edit requests have already been made but the user didn't respond and is inactive now. As for forks, that doesn't update the script for the other people using it. Moreover, I was looking for a place to request it where a user currently very fluent in coding can readily implement it if they also think it's important.
What would be the place to ask about this script which is used across Wikimedia projects to be adopted and improved to be converted to a gadget? It doesn't seem to be Meta:Babel but that's what my fourth point was about.
Regarding forks, what is missing is a way to find them and documentation. So far, I know of one js page that you linked above with no documentation, again in userspace, and no other fork. Maybe for context I should say: I'm looking not for a tool for practical purposes for myself but for a functionality used and widely adopted by the Wikimedia community / Wikimedians. Maybe I'll try the js you linked, thanks.
So I think the way forward is the scriptWhyNotResolve linked by NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh and which is under active development. Albeit also in user space / not a gadget and currently not having a documentation page, various issues with EasyResolve have already been solved by it. As for how to make it a gadget, that may be something for another time to find out – an issue is that it would be useful as a gadget across many wiki projects, not just metawiki.Prototyperspective (talk)23:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Reminder: Please help to choose name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. The finalist vote starts today. The finalists for the name are:Abstract Wikipedia, Multilingual Wikipedia, Wikiabstracts, Wikigenerator, Proto-Wiki. If you would like to participate, thenplease learn more and vote now at meta-wiki.Thank you!
Latest comment:8 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category:Editing is fully cluttered and unoverseeable with lots of items about the same pages. I cleaned up and subcategorizedCategory:Commons-related software but a category and a page mess it up again. There's also more categories likeCategory:Artificial intelligence that would already be straining to glance over their contents if it wasn't for this problem but this makes the page even more offputting. Could somebody tag categories with translated pages in them for translation please? I thought an edit likeSpecial:Diff/29668028 could solve this but that one was reverted because I didn't "fully" do it but I still don't know how to do it and also if it wasn't reverted I think it needs somebody to mark the edited page for translation for this to have the intended effect.Prototyperspective (talk)00:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.