>
>"Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote on Friday, July 06,
>2007 12:02 PM:
>
>
> > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2572111922
> >
> > I heard Facebook users are more technology-savvy than MySpace users. ;)
> >
> > I know at least two Commoners who are on Facebook. Someone else PLS
> > JOIN MY GROUP OR OMG I FEELS LONELY
I am on Flikr and Facebook and Myspace, Yahoo 360 etc, I tried to
join or add you when Iwas on Facebook but to no avail, nothing showed
up??? [[User:WayneRay]]
"Casey Brown" <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Flominator wrote:
> > "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote on Friday, July 06,
> > 2007 12:02 PM:
> >
> >
> >> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2572111922
> >>
> >> I heard Facebook users are more technology-savvy than MySpace users. ;)
> >>
> >> I know at least two Commoners who are on Facebook. Someone else PLS
> >> JOIN MY GROUP OR OMG I FEELS LONELY
> >
> >> ps: our Flickr group is still doing good business too:
> >> http://www.flickr.com/groups/wikimedia_commons/
> >
> >
> > What about a Commons page "Commoners elsewhere" or something around
> > those
> > lines?
> Sounds like a good idea to me.
there you go:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commoners_elsewhere
Regards,
Flo
In its current state of i18n in our javascript is broken at best.
The i18n stuff will not work in Monobook.js as it is. Loading a
subpage 'monobook.js/'+wgUserLanguage is a nice idea, but such script
includes are only queued by the includePage()! The scripts are '''not'''
loaded immediately, and thus the translation strings are not available to the
scripts on the page.
It won't help to move the i18n stuff to Common.js, as Common.js and
Monobook.js are delivered to the client as one chunk.
We need another layer of includes in our script system to get the execution
order right, and I propose the following:
1. in MediaWiki:Common.js only skin-non-specific helperfunctions which require
no string translations should be permitted
2. No user extension function should be included directly from Common.js or be
put into Common.js (see 1.)
3. To the bottom of the Common.js add two includePage calls:
includePage( 'MediaWiki:Common.js/' + wgUserLanguage );
includePage( 'MediaWiki:Common.js/' + skin + '/' + wgUserLanguage );
for global and skinspecific i18n strings.
4. For practical purposes '''always''' include the english translation, which
should serve as the base translation. Only execute the other two includes if
wgUserLanguage != 'en'.
This will permit incomplete or missing translations, enabling english as a
fallback.
5. To the bottom of the Common.js add one more includePage call:
includePage( 'MediaWiki:Common.js/Extensions' );
for extensions that should be included in every skin
6. In MediaWiki:Common.js/Extensions add small scripts and includePage calls
for larger scripts. The MediaWiki:Common.js/Extensions page will be executed
_after_ the whole i18n system and thus the i18n strings will be available to
the extensions, allowing for a unified JS-i18n system
6. in MediaWiki:Monobook.js only skin-specific helperfunctions should be
included which require no string translations.
5. To the bottom of the Monobook.js add one more includePage call:
includePage( 'MediaWiki:Monobook.js/Extensions' );
for monobook specific extensions
Note that Common.js and Monobook.js are delivered en-block as the first
scripts which we (the non-developer admins) can influence.
P.S.: replace Monobook.js with your favourite skin, I just used it as an
example.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwenhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwenhttp://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwenhttp://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dschwen
>
>From: Ayelie <ayelie.at.large(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Commons-l] HotCat JavaScript tool, V0.1
>
>Hmm... adding this to this thread because it kind of fits in with the idea
>of HotCat.js.
>
>What about the ability to mass-add images to a category? I'm thinking of
>cases where people have created a gallery with images but none are
>categorised; this happens a lot and it's a pain to open every image and edit
>to add the category. Something like Magnus's category move javascript, where
>you can select images in a category and move them to another, but activated
>for galleries.
No I totally disagree, if there are many images organized in a
gallery then the gallery should already be linked to a category. I
have been busy taking these duplicated images out of Categories and
leaving them in the article galleries. It's would be the same as that
User who created 1000's of species categories with all the photos
duplicated in the category that were already in the individual
galleries, Way too much duplication. Magnus and others have that
great tool for showing galleries and categories on the screen and
some photos are in up to 6 or 7 different categories and galleries,
simplification is the best way. [[User:WayneRay]]
As a part of this brainstorming, please know that we have very good
friends at Flickr. I see Stewart and Caterina socially fairly often,
and of course they are huge fans. So if there is anything we need
from Flickr, let's discuss it, write it up, and I can ask them.
On Jul 7, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> During an IRC discussion earlier today, Rama suggested we use
> Flickr to help increase our exposure - per the recent conversation
> in the "My photo was reused" thread. We discussed the fact that we
> could upload our Featured Pictures using a Wikimedia Commons
> account; hopefully people would see these images and ask to use
> them, thereby increasing the visibility and knowledge of the
> Commons. Cbrown1023 created the account to ensure nobody else could
> steal the name, and now we're bringing this idea here to see what
> the community has to say :) May also be brought up on the village
> pump if it seems wise.
>
> The e-mail address has been temporarily set to info-
> en(a)wikimedia.org so requests, etc. can be handled there in private;
> we also thought of requesting an info-commons(a)wikimedia.org address
> (if one doesn't currently exist?) for such purposes. The fact that
> requests may be in many different languages as Commons is
> multilingual (Flickr too) would also be a good reason for not
> having things sent to info-en but to info-commons directly.
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Ideas?
>
> --
> Casey Brown ( Cbrown1023 )
> Ayelie ( Editor at Large )
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2572111922
I heard Facebook users are more technology-savvy than MySpace users. ;)
I know at least two Commoners who are on Facebook. Someone else PLS
JOIN MY GROUP OR OMG I FEELS LONELY
<insert cat meme>
OK I'm done.
ps: our Flickr group is still doing good business too:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/wikimedia_commons/
cheers!
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
New experimental tool to quickly add new categories. Called "HotCat",
in reminiscence of "hot dog". Sorry.
1. Go to [1], or add "includePage('MediaWiki:HotCat.js');" to your
monobook.js (do the latter to see the full functionality)
2. In the list of categories at the bottom of the page, notice the final "(+)"
3. Click on it to add a new category
4. An input box opens. It will suggest a category name "as you type".
5. Click "OK" to add the category.
NOTES:
* If you got there via [1], you will only get an open edit window.
This is due to the "script test mode". If you add the script to your
monobook.js, you will get the full functionality, that is, it will add
the category at the bottom of the page and save it.
* The script actually retrieves several matches to what you type, but
I was too lazy to add a listbox with options. Maybe someone else will
implement that :-)
* This can be adapted to replace/remove categories. Requires some text
parsing, though. Maybe I will do it later, if noone beats me to it :-)
Cheers,
Magnus
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Valeriana_officinalis_…
On 7/3/07, Barcex <barcexwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I Agree on this point, and think that the real problems why Commons is not
> so successful are not related to its name but to the MediaWiki software (as
> is now) that is very good to write encyclopedias but awful to implement an
> image bank. The concept of "wiki" (easy edit with full history of changes)
> is very useful for our needs, but the implementation with MediaWiki is far
> from being good.
>
> Barcex
>
This issue has come up multiple times, but without much result. What
specific features does Commons need to have? A list of this might be
interesting, because their are very likely users who are willing to
implement those kind of things, either as an extension, javascript
hack or external service.
Bryan
On 08/07/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> During an IRC discussion earlier today, Rama suggested we use Flickr to help
> increase our exposure - per the recent conversation in the "My photo was
> reused" thread. We discussed the fact that we could upload our Featured
> Pictures using a Wikimedia Commons account; hopefully people would see these
> images and ask to use them, thereby increasing the visibility and knowledge
> of the Commons. Cbrown1023 created the account to ensure nobody else could
> steal the name, and now we're bringing this idea here to see what the
> community has to say :) May also be brought up on the village pump if it
> seems wise.
>
> The e-mail address has been temporarily set to info-en(a)wikimedia.org so
> requests, etc. can be handled there in private; we also thought of
> requesting an info-commons(a)wikimedia.org address (if one doesn't currently
> exist?) for such purposes. The fact that requests may be in many different
> languages as Commons is multilingual (Flickr too) would also be a good
> reason for not having things sent to info-en but to info-commons directly.
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Ideas?
Interesting idea. I'm sure a bot could be written to do the daily upload.
I'm not sure it would help a ton in terms of exposure, but it couldn't
hurt, hey.
Flickr is geared towards people uploading their own work. It might be
worth checking if there is something in the TOS against uploading
others' work (regardless or whether or not license terms allow it).
cheers
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
