Anthere Wrote:
>--- Gareth Owen <wiki(a)gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Anthere <anthere5(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > But, from a conceptual point of view, that is
>> certainly not a portal. That's
>> > an *english* main page, with links to other
>> languages. Sorry, but I like
>> > words to be used in their context.
>>
>> What the hell *is* a portal (besides a internet
>> buzzword from about 1997)
>
>Is this type of question designed to make me sound as
>if I had absolutely no idea what I am talking about,
>or not worth listening because not using the best
>word, or designed to slow down any thinking process by
>drawing out a *detail*, or what ??
>
>If such is your concern, explain *yourself* what *you*
>think is a portal, or better, explain what should be
>www.wikipedia.org page to your opinion.
Anthere, I took the question to be sincere, though not especially diplomatic. :-) I also don't know what a portal is--I *think* I do, but I'm usually only partly right when I *think* I know something, and so I'm usually mostly wrong.
Yahoo is a portal, right? ... Or no?
kq
On Friday 11 October 2002 12:40 am, The Cunctato wrote:
> On 10/10/02 6:41 PM, "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Granted the English Wikipedia is the oldest
> > and largest but it shouldn't be vaulted as /The Main/
> > Wikipedia with the other languages relegated to second
> > class status in The Main WIkipedia's shadow.
>
> By the same token, the English-lang Wikipedia is the oldest and largest (by
> far), and it shouldn't be shoved around simply for the sake of political
> correctness.
? How is finally having the English Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org shoving
around the English Wikipedia? All the others are at xx.wikipedia.org so this
isn't about political correctness, it is about what is fair and equal.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Is the IRC channel underused because nobody wants to use it, or
because nobody bothers because it's underused?
--
Khendon (Jason Williams)
khendon(a)khendon.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/
Has anyone ever considered importing the db from the sevilla university
wikipedia? they have a lot more stuff, why not? Or is there a specific
reason? Ist here a discussion about this that can be read somewhere, i
really couldnt find much info on the whole fork ordeal.
Lightning
Anthere Wrote:
>In Wikipedia case, most people will only go to one of
>the links most of time. So a portal is not very
>interesting maybe? Except if on the second connexion,
>the user is directly brought to the right
>xx.wikipedia.org. Otherwise, it is a lack of time.
>
>But if on the second connexion the user is brought to
>the xx.wikipedia.org, he will rarely go to the
>www.wikipedia.org and maybe is it loosing something.
>No ?
>
>Besides, you will notice I used the word "partners". A
>portal tends to atomize things rather than to
>interlink them.
>
>Does what I say make more sense now ? Do you think I
>am wrong in my feeling or not ?
You make some good points. What would you have on the page to make it more consistently useful?
kq
Shouldn't wikipedias that have not been started be moved to the new
software? I mean, there is nothing to change so it seems to me, right now
would be the best time to do something like that since there is no content
and It'd be easier to start them in the new software rather than in the old
and then convert them....
there seems to be a lot of them.. look here:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Complete_list_of_language_wikis_avai
lable
Also can some pass this on to the international list, i suspect they might
have some more views on this, but i really dont need the traffic from that
list in my inbox.
Lightning
I see what you mean, I see no reason however for you to put a short line or
two description of each winnie the pooh character on the main winnie the pooh
page, and then leave a link to a page on each of them so someone can cover
them in more detail.
Alex Bradbury
I am happy to announce that we have no more double redirects anymore (in
the article namespace, that is). While that doesn't sound like a big
thing, a double redirect could be an annoyance for newcomers. So, keep
it that way ;-)
Magnus
Lightning wrote:
> another option i ould like would be this:
>
> Miami (1897 bytes)
> City in the United States. For other uses see Miami.
> ---also available in Esperanto, Spanish ......
I think this option would be best.
kq
<PRE>I personally think it depends on whther one author is owrking throughi t, or
descriptions have grown over time. If it is one author then they may well be
planning to expand their description etc, and so would be annoyed if people
interfered.