UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/English Administration

Dicuss

Discussy belowy. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly get behind something like this. With very few exceptions, everything else in UD is in English, so it should only follow that anything related to Administrative purposes on the wiki be conducted in English. While I certainly have nothing against people using other languages on the wiki, using them on Admin pages (like the example) just obfuscates the point and leads to confusion and inside jokes where they are not needed. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. It's fine elsewhere on the wiki, but on the Admin pages, it's either there to be funny or annoying. In either case, it creates unnecessary work for other people since they have to go look up translations and deal with the inaccuracies therein. Plus, some of the non-English stuff posted was done by people using online translators, so even if the users of the Admin pages did speak that language, it might be nonsense anyway.

The only way I could see this harming anyone is if we ended up with someone completely incapable of speaking in English on the wiki who needed to talk on the Admin pages, which would be kinda odd, given that the game and the wiki are both entirely/primarily conducted in English. —Aichon— 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You could use an online translator, you silly folks. D: --Janus ^talk 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But that takes effort! There's certainly gonna be a portion of people who cba to look it up, and what do they get? Nothing. Just nothing...--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw.. :( --Janus ^talk 23:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a huge problem, but I have no issues with fixing it. Cyberbob  Talk  05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, why not. If it stops stupid crap on admin pages like the last couple of days --

 

 

 

 

05:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OH FINE

You guys are mean. I won't do it anymore then. Make the policy still though. :( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn’t just you. Plus, Lelouch's comments really were just gibberish, essentially, based on some talk I read on a talk page. —Aichon— 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Koala and a waiter. --Janus ^talk 23:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a policy on this, really. Just as long as the voter puts their vote in bold, and in english, as already required by the voting instructions anyway, they can spout whatever gibberish they like afterwords. The justifications are only their to convince others, as long as it's made easy for the sysop who comes in later to cycle, what they say doesn't matter -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:38 19 December 2009 (BST)

I honestly don't mean to be contrary, but I didn't see any instructions specifying that votes must be in English, and if there isn't a need for policy to reduce the confusion caused by non-English comments, then why did you change the indentation on SA's and Thad's votes so that they no longer count? After all, they both have their votes bolded. Unless those votes are inadmissible for other reasons (entirely possible, since I'm still learning policy), isn't it reasonable to say that non-English comments are already a source of confusion? —Aichon— 02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess he indented them because they did not conform to the suggested voting format of "Yea" or "Nay", or any close variation thereof. - User:Whitehouse 02:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They did, they just weren't in English. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a different language probably doesn't qualify as a close variation. - User:Whitehouse 02:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a suggested voting format doesn’t qualify as a requirement. :P

Besides, according to Deletions/Scheduling, it follows the same voting format as Deletions, which just specifies that the vote must be bolded somewhere in the text, and doesn't say that it must be in English or at the start of the comment. And unless we want to take the Yea and Nay thing literally and throw out all votes that don't match those words, then I'd say it's implied that anything with the same meaning as those words is acceptable, regardless of language. —Aichon— 03:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's common sense to allow no or nay or against to be interchangeable for the required vote, but once you get into other languages being used simply for laffs, making the sysops guess what the meaning is, or go out of their way to use translators, it shouldn't be tolerated (without good cause) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:46 19 December 2009 (BST)

I completely agree that it's common sense and shouldn't be tolerated for the very reasons you cited. I just meant that with a literal interpretation of the current rules, it seems like it might be permissible, hence why I think a policy like this would be useful. —Aichon— 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To avoid yet another policy for something so minor, and obvious, it's better to just edit the pages in question to say something like the "voters intentions needs to be made obvious". If there is a dispute, then a/a or a/pd to force it through -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:20 19 December 2009 (BST)

another header

This'll go to voting before Christmas, most likely this weekend, barring any other major objections. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

wow

a reactionary and usless policy after some joking around in admin pages... who would expect that ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

hey, isso quer dizer que durante discussões eu tb tenho de falar em ingles ? ou estou livre para usar o idioma q quiser aqui ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"joking around in admin pages": annoying, troll users take jokes too far and QQ when the wiki is changed to force their shit out of the community. --

 

 

 

 

05:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I'm not crying about it so much. It's a good idea to stomp on it now, hell, I don't even see why I did it. Guess the closeness of Christmas is getting me all jittery.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)