Wikidata talk:Project chat

The page is for discussion of how to improve the Project chat page.
To share comments or questions about Wikidata, please visit the Project chat page.

§Archival time reduced

There are currently 98 sections on this page. I've reduced the archival time to 3 days (from the previous 5) to see if that makes it a bit more navigable. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Make sense, let us see whether three days is a proper time.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow [1]. Figure we should stick with the 3-day archival time for a week or so, and then adjust as needed. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

in my opinion instead of archiving fast we should separate chat pages like en.wiki because many users don't check this page every day so they will ask a question many time!Reza1615 (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be worth dividing the English one into subpages. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

More useful would be, IMHO, to use the templates which allow requesting bot-archival of resolved sections. There was a lot of clutter and I didn't find an easy way to mark sections as dealt with. Could someone check whether the bot uses this feature and document the syntax to use? --Nemo 16:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it'd be better for the archiving bot to archive after a discussion was closed, rather than just after a short time period (though we'd want to auto-archive at, say, 14 days anyway to avoid things getting stale). I also think that 3 days is way too short given the number of things people need to keep track of to answer here - I've just has to rescue a thread I started four days ago which didn't come to a conclusion. James F. (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And now we're at 18 sections only, hence raised to a more standard 7 days. --Nemo 19:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

§Wiki, please.

A link in the site/hatnote to somewhere explaining what phase II is, might be useful. (This is in reaction to note saying: Phase II is live; please use the project chat to discuss any issues.) Buzz-tardis (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [edit oops, not irc] Buzz-tardis (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

§Archiving closed subsections after 1 day

Is it possible to change Bot's code to archive subsection that is closed, after 1 day (which has {{Archive top}}) ? to archive them faster than normal subsections▬ Reza1615 / T 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The closed subsections are still edited by stewards, it should be one day from the last edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Now subsection 3 days after last day archives by bot I proposed to change it to 1 day for closed subsections▬ Reza1615 / T 15:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I know, my point is it should be one day after the last edit, not one day after closure. I have no objections to changing three days to one.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Some time ago I emailed Xqt (PyWikipedia developer) asking for a patch since he understands the archivebot.py code better than I do. I haven't gotten any replies, and have since tried some things, but unsuccessfully. If I can't have it patched, I might have to have a separate code written for this. — Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I had asked Wikimedia Commons user Euku to either run his bot (SpBot) here, or to release his code, and he said it shouldn't be a huge problem, and that he'd take a look later. — Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hazard-SJ, any update? --Nemo 19:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nemo, SpBot had been operating here earlier (see approval), but for whatever reason stopped. I just sent the operator a message regarding this.  Hazard SJ  06:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

§Multilingual project chat

I hereby propose to get rid of the 53 non-English project chats we currently have and rather make the current English-only project chat a multilingual place. There is no point in having 54 project chats of which most probably only 1 is monitored frequently. Vogone talk 21:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• That seems reasonable considering that every other discussion page on Wikidata is multilingual. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed, probably the most sensible thing to do. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not that I oppose, but for non-English (and possibly non-speakers of a couple of more active languages such as German) this would actually mean that instead of a project chat with one new topic per week, which can be monitored weekly, they will get in the watchlist a high-traffic page where 95% of all discussions are not interested or not comprehensible to them, and the interesting discussions are archived much faster they would normally check them out.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not that I oppose either, but this is NOT the right place to discuss this. As a minimum it should be mentioned (linked) on all 53 non-English project chats. HenkvD (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like that I can monitor the languages I know. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose not a problem for me, but maybe it's little problematic for new users, and I think that it's not so easy to get answer in this Project chat than in local project chat, because here it's harder to notice discussions with own language. Also, project chat will be full of discussions with different languages. Maybe some sub page for project chat would be better, like Project chat/non-English. --Stryn (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with the arguments of Stryn, but I also see a problem with disjoint chats where important things are discussed in one language without the speakers of others languages knowing about the discussion. For someone asking a question or something like that there is no need for other language communities to get involved, but important discussions and notifications should as much as possible come across to everyone. Byrial (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would  Support it for Swedish since I see Swedishspeaking WD-users prefer the WP-village-pump instead, except for those active on the English. -- Lavallen^talk(block) 11:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• I think we should rather have a tool to easily post notices on various project pages. --Zolo (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose In some cases monolingual spaces can be useful for discussing topics concerning only the community of one language. And then there are people that do not participate to general discussions because they do not comprehend English language. --Paperoastro (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - if this proposal doesn't pass, then the scope of the project chat needs to be better specified. Often cases, votes happen on the English page, but that isn't really a good thing since users of other languages might not know about them (such as this discussion). Any votes should be kept to RfCs if there are still 54 project chats, IMO. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That is true. These miny-RfCs should really go to the RfC page. The administrators should keep an eye out for those things and start the RfC. But the translation effort is always a problem. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose to merging the chat pages, but  Support to improve the RfC process, giving time to translate the outcome that will be voted on and then invite the different language communities (in Wikipedia) to participate in the voting process at least. Maybe we should make a different between "major" Rfc's and "minor", some of them are not that conflictive.--Micru (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I have to  Oppose this without a system for interlanguage communication (otherwise, this is pointless). I already monitor the two project chats in the languages I know (en and fr). However, our RfC process needs help and I don't see why RfCs aren't getting translated.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose. The non-English versions are quite heavily used. Merging the project chats would result in a page that in mostly incomprehensible to pretty much everyone, anglophones included. --Yair rand (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Probably some can be dispensed with. I monitor French and Hebrew. French is a reasonably active one; Hebrew is almost never used. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• That is not used now doesn't mean that it won't be used next year, and by deleting it that possibility would be reduced to zero.--Micru (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Instead of closing diverse project chat pages, you should allow non-translatable pages to be translated دوستدار ایران بزرگ (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment maybe is more useful to create an international project chat for general discussions and keep local chat --ValterVB (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

§Domatium

Moved to WD:Project chat#Domatium.

§Create Account is broken

Moved to WD:Project chat#Create Account is broken.

§Creating an interwiki link

Moved to WD:Project chat#Creating an interwiki link.

§Archiving

Hazard-Bot can't archive first two sections from Project chat because they aren't signed. --XXN (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I archived them manually. --Stryn (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

§Junk

What does this code in the top of Project Chat?

{|
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| style="width: 50%;" | __TOC__
| style="width: 50%; padding-left: 1.2em;" |
<!--------------------------
            PROJECTS NEWS
--------------------------->
<!--
{{Main Page/Frame
 | color      = 006699
 | title      = Wikidata: Ongoing projects and meta-pages[[Wikidata:Project/Hot potatoes|<sup>[edit]</sup>]]
 | content    = <div>{{Wikidata:Project/Hot potatoes}}</div>
}}

--Pasleim (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Be bold You can delete it and see what happens. It can just be reverted if it's a problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)