For those participating in the ongoing debate, you may or may not wish
to be aware of the relative prominence of the interlanguage links in
the new page layout.
You can see the new layout in development at Gwicke's demo wiki at
http://wiki.aulinx.de/. (Log in and select the "MonoBook' skin in your
preferences if it's not being shown initially.) After continued
tweaking of the layout and the rest of the software, this or a close
cousin is going to be the standard page layout on Wikipedia; it's been
developed in response to longstanding usability problems with the
existing skins, and has consistently met with the approval of
Wikipedians asked to take a look.
Instead of along the top and bottom (which is ok for a few links but
overwhelming as the list grows), they go in the sidebar, following the
other functional links. This keeps them accessible but out of the way,
and handles a long list less disruptively.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
o sea que si no es a traves de una resolucion ISO uds no aprueban la creacion de espacios para nuevas lenguas?
que pesar, existen cientos de lenguas no reconcidas, que bien ameritarian un espacio propio.
Get your Free E-mail at http://llanera.zzn.com
____________________________________________________________
Para obtener su propio servicio de correo electrónico basado en la Multimalla, diríjase a http://www.zzn.com
I'd like to propose that we break Wikipedia's Reference Desk (and
wikibook's Study help desk) to they're own wiki, at the moment both are
fairly unstructured.
Having their own wiki will mean we can properly classify/sort the
questions/answer and make navigation easier.
So what do people think ?
Possible name suggestions for the project:
wikiref / wikiquestion / wikiquest / refdesk.wikipedia
Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
Timwi wrote:
>Now some might say, "Ah, but you can copyright ideas!"
>No, you can't. You can *patent* ideas. I am less sure
>about whether a language (which can be regarded as an
>encoding for information) can be patented. Sonja, how
>about you go patent Toki Pona, and let us know how it went ;-)
Hasn't Microsoft put some type of protection on C#? Haven't you heard of
proprietary languages? Not that I agree with such a thing, but we should be
careful.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
"Evan Prodromou" <evan(a)wikitravel.org> schrieb:
> >>>>> "AE" == Andre Engels <engelsAG(a)t-online.de> writes:
>
> AE> (so please, if you want the bot to work _don't_ customize the
> AE> name of the /wiki/ directory as well).
>
> Explain to me again why I want a bot that has this kind of stuff
> hard-coded and difficult to change running against our server.
Actually, it isn't that hard to change, I realize now... If ever you
decide to change this 'wiki' on some Wikitravel, all we have to do
is move the 'wiki' from one variable to another. Not more work than
the change from the en.wikipedia.org to the www.wikitravel.org/en
syntax would be if it had gone as I thought (and hoped) it would
go. So, forget about this warning.
As to why you would like to use it: Ask Pierre Abbat.
And as to why these things are hardcoded: The bot was developped
for Wikipedia, and in general in the simplest way possible. If you
can tell me now what we want from it in one year, we might choose
a different model now rather than having to reverse-engineer later.
If not, I'll just keep with our existing 'model'.
Andre Engels
"Pierre Abbat" <phma(a)webjockey.net> schrieb:
> I would like to modify it to work with Wikitravel. The main differences are:
> *URLs begin http://www.wikitravel.org/<language>, not
> http://<language>.wikitravel.org/.
> *All Wikitravels are UTF-8 enabled.
The second is no big problem, the first is a bigger problem. Another issue
is that /wiki/ in Wikipedia is called /article/ on Wikitravel, but /articol/
on Romanian Wikitravel. I solved this by using the /wiki/wiki.phtml?title=
form in all cases on Wikitravel, whereas /w/wiki.phtml/?title= is being
used on Wikipedia only when necessary (so please, if you want the bot to
work _don't_ customize the name of the /wiki/ directory as well).
However, this left me with the first problem. I _thought_ that I could
simply change langs for that, but it appears that that is not the case.
Problem is, that it will now be looking for the sitename
http://www.wikitravel.org/en/ instead of http://www.wikitravel.org/, and
that one does not exist.
Andre Engels
"Peter Gervai" <grin(a)tolna.net> schrieb:
> I can talk from experience.
>
> HU was existing since 1991, and contained 5 pages (when I last counted). One
> main page with dead links, 1 page with real, short content, and the others
> varying from "hehehehe" to "*** your *** *** mother".
1991? Sounds improbable, given that the Wikipedia project as a
whole only exists since 2001.
> I convinced brion to flush it down the toilet and start again, and invested
> considerable amount of time to get it started. Now, with 5 or so permanent
> editors it is alive and probable won't die anymore.
>
> What a new language needs is more than zero permanent editor with dedication
> to create as much articles that makes it look like a worthwile waste of time
> for the people walking nearby. I'd say without 3 dedicated editors (friends
> preferably) a new language should not be started. It is probably going to
> get extinct soon, because there are at least 50 articles required to be
> created before people consider it serious.
And a single person writing will likely give up before that point is
reached, while a small group will tend to give the positive feedback
that makes people continue. On the other hand, often the first group
will come from single persons who just arrived at approximately the
same time, so I would still like not to discourage single people from
editing a new language Wikipedia.
Perhaps we could have people from a 'related' language keep an eye on
such small languages. A number of Dutch speakers (among which yours
not so humbly) have helped the Frisian Wikipedia to start up in that
way, and I think some French did with Occitan (?). The idea is to
welcome people on the 'small' Wikipedia in the same way one would do
on the 'big' one - say hello, wikify their contributions etcetera.
This way new contributors might find themselves in a 'spread bed', and
be more likely to stay long enough that a second and third one has
come in between.
Andre Engels
Please vote on
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_Syntax
To explain again what this is about:
Currently there is one extension, LaTeX for mathematical formulas. This
extension is called using the syntax
<math>a + b</math>.
This vote is about a general syntax for encapsulating different
extensions. For example, a music extension could be encapsulated like so:
<music>do re mi fa so</music>
Or like so:
[!music do re mi fa so]
This vote is *not* about the syntax for the different extensions
themselves (stuff like "\sin x + \ln y +\operatorname{sgn} z" for math),
it is merely about the syntax for encapsulating these extensions. Some
people think XML-like tags (like <math>) are good enough, while others
are asking for a more "wiki-like" syntax.
Voting deadline is April 12, 2004, 20:00 UTC. Please distribute this
announcement to your local projects. This is not only relevant to
Wikipedia but to all Wikimedia projects.
Let the edit conflicts begin.
Regards,
Erik
"Peter Jaros" <rjaros(a)shaysnet.com> schrieb:
> > Actually, I think these might be too inclusive when looking at dead
> > languages. While I am all for the Latin Wikipedia, and would not mind
> > a Sanskrit one, Hittite or Sumerian are another matter. Many dead
> > languages are only in passive use, and to exclude those, I would
> > like to restrict ourselves to those languages in which (new) documents
> > have been written within the last 50 years or so.
>
> I agree instinctively with your point, but I must ask: why exactly? If
> a group
> of speakers can maintain a Wikipedia in that language, isn't that
> requirement
> enough?
Yes, that should be enough, but I think it would be good to get prima
facie evidence that they can. And such evidence would I think best be
"Well, we (or others) have already written articles in this language."
Andre Engels