If there's no objection, I'm going to switch the URL redirecting around tomorrow, so that www.wikipedia.org/* points to en.wikipedia.org/* rather than the other way 'round. A new intro page can later be set up at convenience.
I object strenuously. This is not a slam-dunk good idea at all. Please hold off at least a good while before doing this.
I really hate saying this, but, um, I'm with Cunc here. I also think it's a really bad idea to have www.wikipedia.org be anything but the most direct route to the front page of the English Wikipedia. Like it or not, that's where the action is. As long as the front page continues to have links to the foreign wikis, I see no need to waste the time of 90% of our users with a pointless "intro" page.
lcrocker@nupedia.com writes:
I also think it's a really bad idea to have www.wikipedia.org be anything but the most direct route to the front page of the English Wikipedia. Like it or not, that's where the action is.
Indeed. I agree with Lee and Cunc. Whether people like it or not, English is the lingua franca of t'Internet, and its likely to stay that way for the forseeable future.
--- Gareth Owen wiki@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
lcrocker@nupedia.com writes:
I also think it's a really bad idea to have
www.wikipedia.org be anything
but the most direct route to the front page of the
English Wikipedia. Like
it or not, that's where the action is.
Indeed. I agree with Lee and Cunc. Whether people like it or not, English is the lingua franca of t'Internet, and its likely to stay that way for the forseeable future. -- Gareth Owen
Well, that's three. Where have you folks been the past few weeks? :)
Stephen
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Stephen Gilbert canuck_in_korea2002@yahoo.com writes:
Well, that's three. Where have you folks been the past few weeks? :)
I missed the discussion. Where was it taking place?
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
I really hate saying this, but, um, I'm with Cunc here. I also think it's a really bad idea to have www.wikipedia.org be anything but the most direct route to the front page of the English Wikipedia. Like it or not, that's where the action is. As long as the front page continues to have links to the foreign wikis, I see no need to waste the time of 90% of our users with a pointless "intro" page.
I agree with this, but what do you think of having all the articles at _both_ en.wikipedia.org and www.wikipedia.org, with us subtly promoting the latter by hardlinks?
The main reason that I have for supporting this is diplomacy. We don't want people working in other languages to feel that English has unfairly co-opted the privileged 'www' namespace.
My proposal would allow all languages to be on equal footing. You can set any individual homepage to be your personal homepage at www, and links under that lead to your language, like en.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, etc.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
We don't want people working in other languages to feel that English has unfairly co-opted the privileged 'www' namespace.
It has the most contributors (by far), the most readers (by far), is the most linked too (by far) and has the most articles (by far).
If en.wikipedia.com co-opting the 'www' namespace is "unfair", its a definition of "unfair" with which I'm not familiar.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:29:50AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
I really hate saying this, but, um, I'm with Cunc here. I also think it's a really bad idea to have www.wikipedia.org be anything but the most direct route to the front page of the English Wikipedia. Like it or not, that's where the action is. As long as the front page continues to have links to the foreign wikis, I see no need to waste the time of 90% of our users with a pointless "intro" page.
I agree with this, but what do you think of having all the articles at _both_ en.wikipedia.org and www.wikipedia.org, with us subtly promoting the latter by hardlinks?
I've not been following this discussion very closely, but why can't all www. links redirect to a xx. link based on cookie/browser settings?
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I agree with this, but what do you think of having all the articles at _both_ en.wikipedia.org and www.wikipedia.org, with us subtly promoting the latter by hardlinks?
FWIW, here's the status quo. The English wiki is at: www.wikipedia.org
The following use 301 'temporarily moved' redirects to point to the above, and are suitable for linking. Since you end up at the above address, it is shown in the browser's URL bar and cookies stay at that address: wikipedia.com wikipedia.org www.wikipedia.com en.wikipedia.org
The following should be in the above group but aren't yet because we forgot it existed: en.wikipedia.com
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 02:12:43PM -0800, Brion VIBBER wrote:
FWIW, here's the status quo. The English wiki is at: www.wikipedia.org
The following use 301 'temporarily moved' redirects to point to the above [...]
301 is 'permanently moved'. They're using 302 'found'.
-M-
mattheww+wikipedia@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 02:12:43PM -0800, Brion VIBBER wrote:
FWIW, here's the status quo. The English wiki is at: www.wikipedia.org
The following use 301 'temporarily moved' redirects to point to the above [...]
301 is 'permanently moved'. They're using 302 'found'.
Oops, that's what I meant to say. The de, da/dk, nl, ja, ko, and meta wikis are set up with permanent 301s to their present homes, with en/www as temporary 302s (as only the (blank)/en/www is presently in dispute, and I don't want web indexers dropping their links permanently until it's resolved).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I was looking on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines for something along the lines of "don't create a new page for EVERY tiny little thing".
couldn't find it.
so here's a suggestion in the shape of a story
I recently found the following mini-web of pages: * roadrunner -- a list of the different meanings, including the cartoon character * Acme -- a multi-stub: several meanings, 2 paragraphs or so for each, including a section on the Acme in the cartoons * Wile E Coyote -- the cartoon character
Being bold, I turned took all the stuff on the cartoons and made "Road Runner cartoon". It's a non-stub made out of stubs. It's not bad as an article, and has potential to grow. Then someone came along and made "Wile E Coyote" and "Acme" back into links.
There's a similar situation over at Winnie-the-pooh -- a dozen stubs for each of the characters, saying, basically: "X is a character in Winnie-the-pooh". This information would be of greater use to the reader on a a single "Winnie-the-pooh" page, say with a header == characters ==.
I'm not sure this can be cleanly stated as some sort of policy without resorting to fluffy cartoon animals. It's a little fuzzy just when to apply this sort of merging and when not to. With the RR articles, there was so much overlap between them.
plus I worry that the list of guidelines is too long already.
erm. there's probably a point to be distilled out of the above ;)
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 20:30, tarquin wrote:
I was looking on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines for something along the lines of "don't create a new page for EVERY tiny little thing".
couldn't find it.
so here's a suggestion in the shape of a story
I recently found the following mini-web of pages:
- roadrunner -- a list of the different meanings, including the cartoon
character
- Acme -- a multi-stub: several meanings, 2 paragraphs or so for each,
including a section on the Acme in the cartoons
- Wile E Coyote -- the cartoon character
Being bold, I turned took all the stuff on the cartoons and made "Road Runner cartoon". It's a non-stub made out of stubs. It's not bad as an article, and has potential to grow. Then someone came along and made "Wile E Coyote" and "Acme" back into links.
There's a similar situation over at Winnie-the-pooh -- a dozen stubs for each of the characters, saying, basically: "X is a character in Winnie-the-pooh". This information would be of greater use to the reader on a a single "Winnie-the-pooh" page, say with a header == characters ==.
I'm not sure this can be cleanly stated as some sort of policy without resorting to fluffy cartoon animals. It's a little fuzzy just when to apply this sort of merging and when not to. With the RR articles, there was so much overlap between them.
Atomization is generally a good idea. Overlap isn't. That's the lesson I would teach young grasshopper.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org