(Moved from wikien-l to wikipedia-l; discussion of revamped alphabetical
page index affects all languages.)
On dim, 2003-02-16 at 17:17, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> >How about something like the alphabetical index
> >for the online AHD: http://www.bartleby.com/61/s0.html ?
> >
> That would be a definite improvement over what we don't have now!
Okay, very preliminary version (code is in CVS):
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages
Note that the test wiki contains nearly all pages starting with 'A', so
the index seems a little oddly weighted. ;)
There's probably some wiggle room in the ideal number of links per page
and whatnot. It needs to be made prettier, with backlinks to the top
level index and forward/back browsing, but the basic functionality is
there.
Also we need to get a proper sorting system in (see my recent post on
wikitech-l); for instance if I put this on the Esperanto wiki all the
accented letters pile up at the end instead of in their proper places:
http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciala:Allpages
Other things: currently the list includes redirects. Some redirects
should definitely stay -- alternate names that would not appear near
each other, for instance. Others (spelling, caps variations) could maybe
be dropped, but that's harder to do consistently. Or more simply, we
could just italicize redirects or something.
The generation of the top level index is currently pretty inefficient;
it makes a separate database query for each chunk of 480 articles, and
takes a while to generate on a wiki with 100,000+ articles. Before
putting it on the English wiki live, it'll need to have some sort of
caching mechanism if it can't be made a lot faster.
Here's a saved copy of the toplevel index for the big English Wikipedia
just to give an idea of scale (the links don't work):
http://test.wikipedia.org/upload/c/cd/Allpages-demo.html
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I've been having intermittent unresponsiveness from wikipedia over about the
last week. Is anyone experiencing the same at the moment? There have been 5
edits in the last half-hour, which is obviously way below normal.Maybe
something special is happening that I don't know of?
Sascha Noyes
aka: snoyes
- --
Please encrypt all correspondence.
PGP key available from:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/noyes/snoyes.asc
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+Zh5ugzJdfX+cTW8RAsBIAJ0cMcUr4G/Ulb1/UooxcKD/3LvAXgCgnVwn
T6uo/pritSotu1d9duifr30=
=wwsl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 27 February 2003 05:33 pm, Erik Moeller wrote:
>....
> Even if this policy is not implemented, I will point out at this juncture
> that I am strongly opposed to an import of the FreeDB data, should that
> ever come up. But to be consistent and to avoid unnecessary work, I think
> we should apply these rules even to existing, manually added album pages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
I have no problem with your proposed policy (at least for en.wiki) but
wouldn't it be a good idea if we somehow collaborated with FreeDB? It would
be great if at the end of a freedb entry there was a link to a Wikipedia
article on the album. Just thinking out loud.
-- mav
WikiKarma
The usual at [[February 21]]
I put up a new version of my wikipedia offline reader, again at
http://test.wikipedia.org/upload/WINOL.zip
(~600KB). You'll also need the en or de SQL file. Click on the help link
in the program for further instructions.
Magnus
Hi,
> On Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:01 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> As I recall, the primary argument against anchors is that they support
> and encourage long pages.
I fully disagree this argument !
Long pages is an arranging problem not a feature problem.
If you think a page is too long, then just split it in 2 parts.
I can't understand you private us using a good feature just cause someone
can misuse it.
Any feature can be misused !
> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 20:42, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Internal anchors were a feature I added and then removed by
> the consensus of the community. If you can come up with a
> /really good/ example of how an internal anchor will make an
> article better in a way that can't be done without it, and
> won't sacrific simplicity of editing, then I'm certainly
> open to putting the feature back.
Imho, the main way anchor can be useful are :
- Link the summary to the corresponding part of the article. Even if it is
not a "long" article, it can be useful.
- Target a particular paragraph in an other article. Useful for encyclopedia
and especially for talk page.
An other problem is perhaps we all don't have the same idea about what is a
"long" article.
Aoineko (as Guillaume)
At 02:52 AM 3/5/03 +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> > If you find such an image on wikipedia (i.e., one for which permission
> > was granted only to wikipedia), it should probably be replaced if at
> > all possible by a more freely usable one, either PD, or FDL licensed
> > itself, or usable under "fair use".
>
>Could I get some indication on when an image falls uner fair use, and when
>it does not?
Indication, yes. A formula, no. Basically, fair use requires (among other
things) that we not use a significant part of the whole work, and that the use
not decrease the commercial/market/financial value of the work.
>Andre Engels
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
Is 142 (that is, the person that's been posting from
several 142.177.xxx.xxx addresses lately) banned?
If so, from which wikis?
The ideas that make me ask:
* 142 is suspected (strongly) of being 24. But 24 was unbanned.
Also, is the evidence of their identity conclusive (say to Jimbo)?
* When Lir was banned from [[en:]], Jimbo explicitly said
that she wasn't banned from [[m:]] (and thus might play chess there).
I'm asking for facts, not for a discussion about 142
(although I'm sure that other people will take the opportunity).
What I very specifically want to know is whether 142 is banned from [[m:]].
-- Toby
I notice that many wikipedians refer to wikipedia pages in these discussion
groups using wiki markup: e.g. [[this_article]]. That's very cute, but
highly impractical in terms of actually linking to the article from a
mail/news client. I usually have to resort to searching, particularly with
meta pages that I'm not familiar with the url syntaxt of. Would it not be
much better to paste the full url from the browser in list messages?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Friday 28 February 2003 04:09 pm, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Talk pages are for comments /about the article/. HTML comments
> in the source text are for comments /about the source text/ that
> don't relate to the article. Most people aren't programmers, and
> so will have no concepts matching the latter; that's OK, they'll
> never use them. But they are vital to those of us who /do/
> understand the difference, and their existence doesn't make the
> experience for non-techies any more difficult.
Stop the presses! If we do decide to encourage HTML comments then please fix
an annoying bug that I've seen in Konqueror 3.1.3 and Mozilla 1.1: for every
line of comments a line of leading white space is added. See
http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/2/2c/Maveric149-temp.png
--mav
WikiKarma
The usual at [[February 22]]
