On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly! And the babel templates are exactly the same. /If/ we decide to have a system standardized across wikis (a good idea, IMO) then hardcoding them is not an optimal solution.
I would disagree with this assertion about optimality. In addition to standardizing the templates, they will be able to use ISO language codes automatically and update translation text from betawiki. For the problem that this is trying to solve, a simplification to the forrest of babel templates, increase in interlingual participation, and further integration of betawiki translation efforts into this, I would say the extension is a highly optimal solution.
The optimal solution is something like:
I do like this idea, in theory. What I don't like is, as I said before, that we would want to provide exceptions for wikis that don't want to be using the shared templates. However, if this was implemented in a similar manner to how image sharing is, that a local copy is taken if it exists and the version from commons is taken otherwise, that would be fine by me. You still lose some of the features of the babel extension, however, but you do solve the core problem.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
FWIW: Has anyone even asked the smaller wikis if they _want_ to use standardized Babel templates (or any community, for that matter?).
For all we know, the various wikis _like_ their babel templates and don't want some extension deciding things for them. I'm all for interwiki cooperation, but let's ensure it's actually cooperation and not the Meta/Foundation-l community deciding something for the rest of the projects.
-Chad