So I decided to fill in a red link I saw on the community portal: [[List of Rivers of Egypt]]. I started creating the article, then reached the amusing realisation that perhaps there is only one. Yep, that one.
So, do we just have a pathetically short list? It seems for completeness etc, that would be the right thing to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_Egypt
Steve
Add links to [Wadi]? To [Brook of Egypt]? :)
On 25 May 2010 09:05, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So I decided to fill in a red link I saw on the community portal: [[List of Rivers of Egypt]]. I started creating the article, then reached the amusing realisation that perhaps there is only one. Yep, that one.
So, do we just have a pathetically short list? It seems for completeness etc, that would be the right thing to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_Egypt
Steve
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 25 May 2010, at 08:05, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So I decided to fill in a red link I saw on the community portal: [[List of Rivers of Egypt]]. I started creating the article, then reached the amusing realisation that perhaps there is only one. Yep, that one.
So, do we just have a pathetically short list? It seems for completeness etc, that would be the right thing to do.
This made me laugh :)
Could you maybe merge the [[List of rivers in X]] articles for a number of Northern Africa nations?
AGK
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:16 PM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
On 25 May 2010, at 08:05, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
So I decided to fill in a red link I saw on the community portal: [[List of Rivers of Egypt]]. I started creating the article, then reached the amusing realisation that perhaps there is only one. Yep, that one.
So, do we just have a pathetically short list? It seems for completeness etc, that would be the right thing to do.
This made me laugh :)
Could you maybe merge the [[List of rivers in X]] articles for a number of Northern Africa nations?
There is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_Africa
Which lists some North African ones.
I also thought there was a template for lists of rivers, but the template at the bottom of that page is generated by a template parameter from Template:Africa topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Africa_topic) so there is no way to actually link to the template as it displays in the article. Which is more than a bit annoying.
Carcharoth
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I also thought there was a template for lists of rivers, but the template at the bottom of that page is generated by a template parameter from Template:Africa topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Africa_topic) so there is no way to actually link to the template as it displays in the article. Which is more than a bit annoying.
Yeah, that caught me by surprise, too. It's a nice way of sort of instantly generating hundreds of templates. And there's nothing stopping someone making {{List of rivers of Africa}} with the content {{Africa topic|List of rivers of}}.
Is it worth asking the developers for the ability to link to a template with parameters? If nothing else it might be useful for previewing etc.
Steve
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I also thought there was a template for lists of rivers, but the template at the bottom of that page is generated by a template parameter from Template:Africa topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Africa_topic) so there is no way to actually link to the template as it displays in the article. Which is more than a bit annoying.
Yeah, that caught me by surprise, too. It's a nice way of sort of instantly generating hundreds of templates. And there's nothing stopping someone making {{List of rivers of Africa}} with the content {{Africa topic|List of rivers of}}.
Is it worth asking the developers for the ability to link to a template with parameters? If nothing else it might be useful for previewing etc.
If you do get a developer to do that, can you also ask for the "what links here" thing to distingush between links provided by template content and links provided by article content (i.e. non-template content)? Preferably with a link to the template providing the link? It used to be the case that "what links here" was a handy way of checking all the links you had made within an article (a good way to check overlinking and underlinking), but in articles where massive footer topic templates are present, you can get literally hundreds of links coming purely from the templates alone and sometimes only 30 or so from the actual article.
Carcharoth
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
If you do get a developer to do that, can you also ask for the "what links here" thing to distingush between links provided by template content and links provided by article content (i.e. non-template content)? Preferably with a link to the template providing the link? It used to be the case that "what links here" was a handy way of checking all the links you had made within an article (a good way to check overlinking and underlinking), but in articles where massive footer topic templates are present, you can get literally hundreds of links coming purely from the templates alone and sometimes only 30 or so from the actual article.
I agree - why don't you start a bug in bugzilla?
Steve
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
If you do get a developer to do that, can you also ask for the "what links here" thing to distingush between links provided by template content and links provided by article content (i.e. non-template content)? Preferably with a link to the template providing the link? It used to be the case that "what links here" was a handy way of checking all the links you had made within an article (a good way to check overlinking and underlinking), but in articles where massive footer topic templates are present, you can get literally hundreds of links coming purely from the templates alone and sometimes only 30 or so from the actual article.
I agree - why don't you start a bug in bugzilla?
Cos I've never understood how bugzilla works, and there's something weird about how you have to register over there and it is different from Wikipedia (I'm not even sure which servers it runs on). I tend to raise things here or at the technical village pump and hope someone on bugzilla raises it themselves (at least until I've worked out to my satisfaction how bugzilla works). What I should really do is subscribe to wiki-tech-l, but then I'd probably be told there to submit a bugzilla...
Incidentally, the way URLs are set up for "what links here" is not futureproof. Currently you have several options: (1) All links; (2) Remove transclusions; (3) Remove redirects, and you can combine these, but if a new filter was introduced, then that would break all previous links such as those where you showed redirects (by excluding transclusions and ordinary links). If a new filter (say, for links provided from template content) was introduced, then previous links that showed just redirects would now show redirects and the new filter, and you would need to add "exclude new filter" to produce the original results of showing just the redirects (if that makes sense). Possibly there are URLs that say "show this class of links" instead of "exclude all other links except the one you want to see", but the default option is for the latter, not the former.
Carcharoth
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Cos I've never understood how bugzilla works, and there's something weird about how you have to register over there and it is different from Wikipedia (I'm not even sure which servers it runs on). I tend to raise things here or at the technical village pump and hope someone on bugzilla raises it themselves (at least until I've worked out to my satisfaction how bugzilla works). What I should really do is subscribe to wiki-tech-l, but then I'd probably be told there to submit a bugzilla...
It's really not too complicated, but the setup would be much more familiar to software developers than the average user.
1) Get an account at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/createaccount.cgi 2) It's operated by Wikimedia. Which server it runs on I don't know, and doesn't seem relevant. 3) Entering a new bug is relatively straightforward. There are billions of fields, but you should ignore most of them. Just make sure you get the product right (normally MediaWiki). And if you're feeling confident, choose the component.
Steve
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Cos I've never understood how bugzilla works, and there's something weird about how you have to register over there and it is different from Wikipedia (I'm not even sure which servers it runs on). I tend to raise things here or at the technical village pump and hope someone on bugzilla raises it themselves (at least until I've worked out to my satisfaction how bugzilla works). What I should really do is subscribe to wiki-tech-l, but then I'd probably be told there to submit a bugzilla...
It's really not too complicated, but the setup would be much more familiar to software developers than the average user.
- Get an account at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/createaccount.cgi
<snip advice>
Thanks.
Carcharoth