Folks,
Apparently the decision whether or not to link even the year in Birth & Dates is a done deal. There is a bot (Lightbot) dutifully going through and unlinking (or, if you prefer, delinking) all parts of a Birth & Death Date. Pity. I still believe there is value in linking at least the year.
Marc Riddell
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
Apparently the decision whether or not to link even the year in Birth & Dates is a done deal. There is a bot (Lightbot) dutifully going through and unlinking (or, if you prefer, delinking) all parts of a Birth & Death Date. Pity. I still believe there is value in linking at least the year.
Marc Riddell
If that is the case, that is disturbing, because it is very clearly not permitted by the BRFA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3). I can't, however, see edits removing birth and death date links in recent contributions -- have you got any examples?
on 11/10/08 8:35 AM, Sam Korn at smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
Apparently the decision whether or not to link even the year in Birth & Dates is a done deal. There is a bot (Lightbot) dutifully going through and unlinking (or, if you prefer, delinking) all parts of a Birth & Death Date. Pity. I still believe there is value in linking at least the year.
Marc Riddell
If that is the case, that is disturbing, because it is very clearly not permitted by the BRFA (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3
).
I can't, however, see edits removing birth and death date links in recent contributions -- have you got any examples?
Yes. This is the one I found today that prompted my post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 63018
Marc
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 11/10/08 8:35 AM, Sam Korn at smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
Apparently the decision whether or not to link even the year in Birth & Dates is a done deal. There is a bot (Lightbot) dutifully going through
and
unlinking (or, if you prefer, delinking) all parts of a Birth & Death
Date.
Pity. I still believe there is value in linking at least the year.
Marc Riddell
If that is the case, that is disturbing, because it is very clearly not permitted by the BRFA (<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3
).
I can't, however, see edits removing birth and death date links in recent contributions -- have you got any examples?
Yes. This is the one I found today that prompted my post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&oldid=2470
That is a single-year delinking, which is generally accepted by many people, though there was a bit of debate about that. This is different from delinking both date (day and month) and year, which I believe Lightmouse has stopped doing with his bot (Lightbot). As for the BRFA, I commented at some point that it was open-ended to the point of uselessness.
Carcharoth
on 11/10/08 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 11/10/08 8:35 AM, Sam Korn at smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
Apparently the decision whether or not to link even the year in Birth & Dates is a done deal. There is a bot (Lightbot) dutifully going through
and
unlinking (or, if you prefer, delinking) all parts of a Birth & Death
Date.
Pity. I still believe there is value in linking at least the year.
Marc Riddell
If that is the case, that is disturbing, because it is very clearly not permitted by the BRFA (<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3
).
I can't, however, see edits removing birth and death date links in recent contributions -- have you got any examples?
Yes. This is the one I found today that prompted my post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 3018http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&oldid= 2470
That is a single-year delinking, which is generally accepted by many people, though there was a bit of debate about that. This is different from delinking both date (day and month) and year, which I believe Lightmouse has stopped doing with his bot (Lightbot). As for the BRFA, I commented at some point that it was open-ended to the point of uselessness.
Carcharoth
Please take a look at this. This is the Main Article Page for Joe Pass. It's the one I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 63018
Marc
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 11/10/08 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
That is a single-year delinking, which is generally accepted by many
people,
though there was a bit of debate about that. This is different from delinking both date (day and month) and year, which I believe Lightmouse
has
stopped doing with his bot (Lightbot). As for the BRFA, I commented at
some
point that it was open-ended to the point of uselessness.
Please take a look at this. This is the Main Article Page for Joe Pass. It's the one I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 63018
That's the one I'm looking at as well. The link seems to be breaking over two lines.
Does this work better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol...
What I see there is this change:
from: "January 13, [[1929]] – May 23, [[1994]]" to: "January 13, 1929 – May 23, 1994"
That is the single-year link to the birth year being removed. And the single-year link to the death year being removed.
A full date delinking would have been:
from: "[[January 13]], [[1929]] – [[May 23]], [[1994]]" to: "January 13, 1929 – May 23, 1994"
The discussion at the talk page of MOSNUM did raise the valid point that single-year linking has been avoided for years, and that discussion probably predates the start of date autoformatting. My view is that the advent of autoformatting meant that the various date linking debates went quiet, and now they are coming back because some people (quite rightly) want to link dates for reasons other than autoformatting.
Carcharoth
on 11/10/08 10:19 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 11/10/08 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
That is a single-year delinking, which is generally accepted by many
people,
though there was a bit of debate about that. This is different from delinking both date (day and month) and year, which I believe Lightmouse
has
stopped doing with his bot (Lightbot). As for the BRFA, I commented at
some
point that it was open-ended to the point of uselessness.
Please take a look at this. This is the Main Article Page for Joe Pass. It's the one I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 63018
That's the one I'm looking at as well. The link seems to be breaking over two lines.
Does this work better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 018
What I see there is this change:
from: "January 13, [[1929]] May 23, [[1994]]" to: "January 13, 1929 May 23, 1994"
That is the single-year link to the birth year being removed. And the single-year link to the death year being removed.
A full date delinking would have been:
from: "[[January 13]], [[1929]] [[May 23]], [[1994]]" to: "January 13, 1929 May 23, 1994"
The discussion at the talk page of MOSNUM did raise the valid point that single-year linking has been avoided for years, and that discussion probably predates the start of date autoformatting. My view is that the advent of autoformatting meant that the various date linking debates went quiet, and now they are coming back because some people (quite rightly) want to link dates for reasons other than autoformatting.
Carcharoth,
At least we're on the same page now :-). I have always thought that linking all the parts of a Birth & Death date was overkill. But I still believe that linking the Year gives a broader context to the person's life.
And the beat goes on :-)
Marc
Year is important to the extent that I would even suggest automatically and by default including available birth & death years (though not exact dates) in the heading, as an guide to navigation and relevance, just as I would always include the name of the title or author of the fiction for a fictional character's name in a heading. Our attempt to make headings look as simple as possible has gone too far to be for the benefit of the reader.
Yes, the time will come when an ordinary reader even on a public computer will be able to adjust this and all sorts of things in personalized settings-- and will know how to do so and routinely use the capability with the same ease as people now select ring tones. While people spend the next decade working on this, we should adjust our defaults to help the average person-- who comes to Wikipedia not for elegance, but information.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 11/10/08 10:19 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 11/10/08 8:58 AM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip>
That is a single-year delinking, which is generally accepted by many
people,
though there was a bit of debate about that. This is different from delinking both date (day and month) and year, which I believe Lightmouse
has
stopped doing with his bot (Lightbot). As for the BRFA, I commented at
some
point that it was open-ended to the point of uselessness.
Please take a look at this. This is the Main Article Page for Joe Pass. It's the one I'm talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 63018
That's the one I'm looking at as well. The link seems to be breaking over two lines.
Does this work better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Pass&diff=250847598&ol... 018
What I see there is this change:
from: "January 13, [[1929]] May 23, [[1994]]" to: "January 13, 1929 May 23, 1994"
That is the single-year link to the birth year being removed. And the single-year link to the death year being removed.
A full date delinking would have been:
from: "[[January 13]], [[1929]] [[May 23]], [[1994]]" to: "January 13, 1929 May 23, 1994"
The discussion at the talk page of MOSNUM did raise the valid point that single-year linking has been avoided for years, and that discussion probably predates the start of date autoformatting. My view is that the advent of autoformatting meant that the various date linking debates went quiet, and now they are coming back because some people (quite rightly) want to link dates for reasons other than autoformatting.
Carcharoth,
At least we're on the same page now :-). I have always thought that linking all the parts of a Birth & Death date was overkill. But I still believe that linking the Year gives a broader context to the person's life.
And the beat goes onŠ :-)
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/10/08, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The discussion at the talk page of MOSNUM did raise the valid point that single-year linking has been avoided for years, and that discussion probably predates the start of date autoformatting.
Actually, it doesn't.
My view is that the advent of autoformatting meant that the various date linking debates went quiet, and now they are coming back because some people (quite rightly) want to link dates for reasons other than autoformatting.
Other reasons include but are not limited to: *Lack of an objective way to determine whether a link is "relevant to the context", particularly if one has no familiarity with the subject matter. *Lack of a reason to have day/month/year articles, if they will go unread in the absence of incoming links (no traffic). *Lack of an efficient way to update and maintain such pages in the absence of incoming links (no whatlinkshere).
—C.W.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.comwrote:
On 11/10/08, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The discussion at the talk page of MOSNUM did raise the valid point that single-year linking has been avoided for years, and that discussion
probably
predates the start of date autoformatting.
Actually, it doesn't.
Oh, OK. Do you know:
(a) When autoformatting first started? (b) Whether year or date linking was being done before date autoformatting started?
My view is that the advent of autoformatting meant that the various date linking debates went quiet, and now they are coming back because some people (quite rightly) want to link dates for reasons other than
autoformatting.
Other reasons include but are not limited to: *Lack of an objective way to determine whether a link is "relevant to the context", particularly if one has no familiarity with the subject matter.
Agree. Though human audits using scripts work quite well if the human has clue.
*Lack of a reason to have day/month/year articles, if they will go unread in the absence of incoming links (no traffic).
Not so sure about this. The articles can still be accessed through the calendar templates and the category system. Instead of clicking on the year link, you click one of the date-related categories, and navigate your way to the relevant date page that way. It is a fair point that not everyone will want to do this, so not having the dates linked from the main text of an article as default is a good thing there (I think links in infoboxes and tables and lists are different). I'm actually rather sympathetic to the notion that link-quality in the main body of the text of an article is improved if it is kept to the most relevant links. In other words, the links act as a carefully selected mix of background articles and sister and daughter articles. Overlinking ruins this careful mix of links.
*Lack of an efficient way to update and maintain such pages in the absence of incoming links (no whatlinkshere).
I use whatlinkshere a lot, and I agree with you that it can be very useful. There are other ways to generate the same "metadata" (e.g. articles with a certain year mentioned) without using links. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:METADATA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographical_metadata
If you look at the way the geographical co-ords system is set up, the information is in articles, and machine-readable, but it doesn't interfere with the main body of the text. So all articles with co-ords within a certain range can be identified using a computer, instead of a human. That was one of the main arguments against date delinking, that a lot of potential information that could be generated by analysing the links was being lost. There was a proposal to replace linked dates with a template that would still tag the dates, but not link them. Not sure what happened to that.
Changing subject completely, one of my big gripes is the way that bloated templates stuck at the bottom of an article pollute "whatlinkshere" with irrelevant links. For example, although hardly any of the Nobel Laureates in Chemistry are mentioned in the main text of Marie Curie, they are all in the "whatlinkshere" list because each Nobel Laureate has all the Nobel Laureates listed in a template at the bottom of each article. Indeed, every single Nobel Laureate in Chemistry appears in the "whatlinkshere" list for each Laureate. If instead of the template, there was a link to a list, or a link to a category, then "whatlinkshere" would be much cleaner and could actually be checked carefully to see if all the links are being used correctly. Ditto for listing the outgoing links. If links from transcluded templates could be semantically distinguished from links from the actual articles, that would be great.
In principle, could that be done?
Carcharoth
On 11/11/08, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Oh, OK. Do you know:
(a) When autoformatting first started?
Roughly five years ago (but maybe earlier if "new date formatter" implies the replacement of an "old date formatter"):
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=2024
(b) Whether year or date linking was being done before date autoformatting started?
Most likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&direction=next&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Dylan&oldid=237979 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=8574528
Agree. Though human audits using scripts work quite well if the human has clue.
<big>IF</big>
Not so sure about this. The articles can still be accessed through the calendar templates and the category system. Instead of clicking on the year link, you click one of the date-related categories, and navigate your way to the relevant date page that way.
That would be put the Y/M/D chronology articles one step closer to being a walled garden unto themselves, and this isn't Wikia.
It is a fair point that not everyone will want to do this, so not having the dates linked from the main text of an article as default is a good thing there (I think links in infoboxes and tables and lists are different).
Well, I don't enjoy copying and pasting things into the search box any more than I would calculating my age with an abacus or a slide-rule.
I'm actually rather sympathetic to the notion that link-quality in the main body of the text of an article is improved if it is kept to the most relevant links.
Hmm, no chance we could establish a "link value" threshold to satisfy all areas of the elitist editor vs. curious reader spectrum? I suppose the software could establish a default based on a number of factors. Google seems to perform a vaguely similar task quite well, but rather than being our own worst enemy we would want something which could be over-ridden on various case-by-case bases. Wouldn't affect me as I'd prefer to see all the links anyway.
In other words, the links act as a carefully selected mix of background articles and sister and daughter articles.
Ah, but what about the aunts and uncles and roommates and next-door neighbors and bastard children? Somebody, please think of... No, seriously I think this approach would only create an artificial hierarchy of topics.
I use whatlinkshere a lot, and I agree with you that it can be very useful. There are other ways to generate the same "metadata" (e.g. articles with a certain year mentioned) without using links.
This would only work if there was a fool-proof way to determine whether a 3- or 4-digit number is a year or a death count or a number of feet above sea level. Last month Greg proposed an alternative solution which could probably handle this with the features I suggested.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-October/096001.html
Changing subject completely, one of my big gripes is the way that bloated templates stuck at the bottom of an article pollute "whatlinkshere" with irrelevant links. For example, although hardly any of the Nobel Laureates in Chemistry are mentioned in the main text of Marie Curie, they are all in the "whatlinkshere" list because each Nobel Laureate has all the Nobel Laureates listed in a template at the bottom of each article. Indeed, every single Nobel Laureate in Chemistry appears in the "whatlinkshere" list for each Laureate. If instead of the template, there was a link to a list, or a link to a category, then "whatlinkshere" would be much cleaner and could actually be checked carefully to see if all the links are being used correctly. Ditto for listing the outgoing links. If links from transcluded templates could be semantically distinguished from links from the actual articles, that would be great.
In principle, could that be done?
It could be done with the current software, by modifying the navbox templates to use a different type of link, but you'd also lose the black/bold format for links pointing the page you're currently on.
Some kind of script to subtract one whatlinkshere list from another will probably show up on the toolserver soon enough. It could also be done with the API, but it would take me a while to figure out how. Let me know if you're serious about this.
—C.W.
2008/11/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
If instead of the template, there was a link to a list, or a link to a category, then "whatlinkshere" would be much cleaner and could actually be checked carefully to see if all the links are being used correctly. Ditto for listing the outgoing links. If links from transcluded templates could be semantically distinguished from links from the actual articles, that would be great.
You can sort of do this with whatlinkshere as it is today, I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Marie_Curie
WLH currently has three buttons at the top - to show/hide "transclusions", "links" and "redirects".
Redirects works, transclusions doesn't seem to (at least not for me just now). If this can be fixed, it presumably would give us exactly what you're looking for...
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
If instead of the template, there was a link to a list, or a link to a category, then "whatlinkshere" would be much cleaner and could
actually
be checked carefully to see if all the links are being used correctly.
Ditto
for listing the outgoing links. If links from transcluded templates could
be
semantically distinguished from links from the actual articles, that
would
be great.
You can sort of do this with whatlinkshere as it is today, I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Marie_Curie
WLH currently has three buttons at the top - to show/hide "transclusions", "links" and "redirects".
Redirects works, transclusions doesn't seem to (at least not for me just now). If this can be fixed, it presumably would give us exactly what you're looking for...
That hides/shows:
1) redirects pointing at Marie Curie 2) pages onto which Marie Curie is trancluded (none, which is as it should be) 3) page with links pointing at Marie Curie
The transclusions option is more to help people who work with templates.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Nob...
Some templates are widely linked and talked about, so hiding the links helps identify which pages are utilising the template.
So, no, it doesn't do what I'm after, and Charlotte, yes, I *am* serious about this. I have a wishlist of other things as well, which I'll no doubt mention at some point. Between, here, the Village Pump and Bugzilla (when I get round to registering an account there), maybe some things will get done (yes, I know there are lots of requests, but it is annoying to raise things and see nothing get done - for years on end).
One for now (rather involved) is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_49#L...
"Link maintenance" - a bit of a bugbear of mine since I failed to realise for four months that a nice list article I was looking after had one of its blue links turn into a redirect (which still looked blue to me). You just don't *see* that on the watchlist or when looking at the article. You only find that out if you click on the link, or spot it in a mass of noise in "related changes".
Carcharoth
PS. Some replies I compose are now going to individuals as well as the list - is that the individuals setting the reply-to thingy, or has something broken at my end?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
If instead of the template, there was a link to a list, or a link to a category, then "whatlinkshere" would be much cleaner and could
actually
be checked carefully to see if all the links are being used correctly.
Ditto
for listing the outgoing links. If links from transcluded templates
could be
semantically distinguished from links from the actual articles, that
would
be great.
Should clarify things here:
1) Listing of the transclusions of a page on other pages (already done in whatlinkshere) 2) Listing of the pages that have a link to a page (already done in whatlinkshere) Splitting the list in 2 into: 2a) Links entered as plain text with square brackets around it (detecting piped links would be nice as well) 2b) Links that are called from a transcluded page or template (not done at the moment) 2c) Links that are re-routed through a redirect page (already done in whatlinkshere)
And stating which templates are contributing which links would be nice as well, to distinguish between infoboxes and footer topic templates and various flavours of navboxes.
Incidentally, I remember asking once, when italics were made to show up as italics in category pages, whether it would be possible to have "see <REDIRECT DESTINATION>" appear next to the redirect name in the category. It was thought not to be a good idea at the time, but I now see that in the search results (search has been revamped re, that redirects show up there next to the results (I think the search results list the redirect destination, and bolds the redirect that you were searching for). An example is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=barrack+obama&fulltex...
So maybe I should ask again if "REDIRECT <see redirect destination>" for category pages is a goer or not? What would happen here is that in, say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prohibition_by_country
Instead of "Prohibition in Finlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Finland" being just in italics, it would appear in italics and have "see Prohibition#Nordic countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition#Nordic_countrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Finland" next to it. Might look horrible, but would work just like the blind entries in a paper encyclopedia. Which one was the link is another matter.
Oh goodness, since I'm on the subject of redirects, I might as well point out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects
One of the examples there is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_Free_Vestibule&redirect=...
Nothing to say there. Just providing another example.
This isn't about date linking, now, is it? What's the etiquette here? Change thread title? Start new thread? Ramble on and on off-topic until date linking is mentioned again? :-)
Carcharoth
2008/11/12 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
That hides/shows:
- redirects pointing at Marie Curie
- pages onto which Marie Curie is trancluded (none, which is as it should
be) 3) page with links pointing at Marie Curie
Aha! I get it now. This makes perfect sense, it just wasn't what I thought it did - show links to the page that exist via transclusions. Perhaps we need a fourth bit for that :-)
PS. Some replies I compose are now going to individuals as well as the list
- is that the individuals setting the reply-to thingy, or has something
broken at my end?
It's gmail being temperamental.
On 11/11/08, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
*Lack of a reason to have day/month/year articles, if they will go unread in the absence of incoming links (no traffic).
Not so sure about this.
Oh, I just happened to notice this bit of idiocy, so maybe my innuendo was not so far-fetched:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_1
They could have at least spelled Roger Daltrey's name right.
—C.W.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I just happened to notice this bit of idiocy, so maybe my innuendo was not so far-fetched:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_1
Gack, what dribbling idiocy.
-Matt
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I just happened to notice this bit of idiocy, so maybe my innuendo was not so far-fetched:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_1
Gack, what dribbling idiocy.
Which side? :-)
Actually, there are some fair points, if overdone, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greg_L/Sewer_cover_in_front_of_Greg_L%E2%8...
No response to my post on the talk page yet, though.
Anyone know what a riser ring is?
Carcharoth
On 11/12/08, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Actually, there are some fair points, if overdone, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greg_L/Sewer_cover_in_front_of_Greg_L%E2%8...
I guess this is supposed to be funny? I think even ED would advise Greg not to quit his day job.
Anyone know what a riser ring is?
As far as I can see it most commonly refers to an apparatus (shaped like one of those paper crowns you get at Burger King) which is used for adjusting the angle of one's exercise bike.
Apparently the purpose is to simulate the effect of biking uphill. Why the hell anyone would want to simulate that... I don't know.
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 11/12/08, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Anyone know what a riser ring is?
As far as I can see it most commonly refers to an apparatus (shaped like one of those paper crowns you get at Burger King) which is used for adjusting the angle of one's exercise bike.
Well, that's about all that shows up on the first page of a google images search, but in this context, a riser ring is the iron casing that forms the topmost part of a manhole opening. It's the ring on which the manhole cover rests. It's called a "riser" because it rises above the -- typically concrete -- underlying structure that the manhole provides access to. The riser's height is chosen to match the thickness of the asphalt/macadam roadway, so that the manhole cover ends up nice and flush with the final surface.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Date linking a done deal!?!
On 11/10/08, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
The discussion at the talk page of MOSNUM did raise the valid point that single-year linking has been avoided for years, and that discussion probably predates the start of date autoformatting.
Actually, it doesn't.
My view is that the advent of autoformatting meant that the various date linking debates went quiet, and now they are coming back because some people (quite rightly) want to link dates for reasons other than autoformatting.
Other reasons include but are not limited to: *Lack of an objective way to determine whether a link is "relevant to the context", particularly if one has no familiarity with the subject matter. *Lack of a reason to have day/month/year articles, if they will go unread in the absence of incoming links (no traffic).
There's no telling when such information might get automated, used and reprinted. I would've liked to get information about hits on http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/font/Saffron_Karaoke_Duet.wmv , because "Copies on optical disk must be gifts." is a pretty open license and so far, I've only had one personal "liked it" review (And he was looking at version three; I'm at version five.). My sister's copy will be late for her birthday, yesterday. In any case, since I'm designing it for a-capella training, there's really only one test of whether it will last. Did I mention that I hav another arrangement in mind? Point is, that some numbers don't really matter, unless people remember.
*Lack of an efficient way to update and maintain such pages in the absence of incoming links (no whatlinkshere).
—C.W.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/11/08, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
There's no telling when such information might get automated, used and reprinted. I would've liked to get information about hits on http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/font/Saffron_Karaoke_Duet.wmv , because "Copies on optical disk must be gifts." is a pretty open license and so far, I've only had one personal "liked it" review (And he was looking at version three; I'm at version five.). My sister's copy will be late for her birthday, yesterday. In any case, since I'm designing it for a-capella training, there's really only one test of whether it will last. Did I mention that I hav another arrangement in mind? Point is, that some numbers don't really matter, unless people remember.
Sorry, I'm not seeing what this has to do with date links or the price of tea in the PRC.
—C.W.
I mean that some publications hav a feature about what happened on this day in 1986, etc. If the date on an article is a link to some page that is robotic, then maybe it could read something like a concordance -- one sentence from every article containing that date, click on a button to get article titles. I only followed a date link once, and some interesting things were there, so I can't say I know much about what can be done with date links. So, I guess my question is...does every editor want their dates automatically linked? Maybe it should be a user preferences option. Will you ever follow date links? Hide date links?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlotte Webb" charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Date linking a done deal!?!
On 11/11/08, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
There's no telling when such information might get automated, used and reprinted. I would've liked to get information about hits on http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/font/Saffron_Karaoke_Duet.wmv , because "Copies on optical disk must be gifts." is a pretty open license and so far, I've only had one personal "liked it" review (And he was looking at version three; I'm at version five.). My sister's copy will be late for her birthday, yesterday. In any case, since I'm designing it for a-capella training, there's really only one test of whether it will last. Did I mention that I hav another arrangement in mind? Point is, that some numbers don't really matter, unless people remember.
Sorry, I'm not seeing what this has to do with date links or the price of tea in the PRC.
—C.W.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/13/08, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
I mean that some publications hav a feature about what happened on this day in 1986, etc.
Oh yes, definitely, and to the point of negating the argument that such pages are "indiscriminate collections of information".[1]
If the date on an article is a link to some page that is robotic, then maybe it could read something like a concordance -- one sentence from every article containing that date, click on a button to get article titles.
That's actually a good idea, and it shouldn't be that hard to do on the toolserver. Surely it would some new database tables to be efficient, and there would still need to be some kind of standard link syntax to distinguish a date from a poorly worded sentence which coincidentally looks like a date.[2]
But imagine being able to click on a date link and see all other events which happened on that exact date, or within the calendar week of that year, or in the seven-day period centered on that day (given day +/- 0-3 days), or on that calendar day/week/month but only within a certain decade, or during a given country's "election years" within a certain century, or any of these options but filtered to events related to bluegrass music or ice hockey or Portuguese literature, etc., etc. without having to edit or create any pages.
For me the only risk would be spending more time browsing around in this than actually editing.
I only followed a date link once, and some interesting things were there, so I can't say I know much about what can be done with date links. So, I guess my question is...does every editor want their dates automatically linked?
The current mass delinking is evidence that this is a silly question.
Maybe it should be a user preferences option.
I agree and I've suggested this on a number of occasions to no avail.
—C.W.
[1] Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_1 [2] A few examples here (more on request) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-October/095989.html