Back in January we had some discussion about how difficult it was to edit multiple cross-linked pages about subjects within a context now that subpages are gone. There were several suggestions, but none of them really clicked and none were ever implemented. The issue has come up again, and there are now more pages with disambiguating contexts now, so I think now is a good time to revisit.
I also have a proposal that I like better than all the earlier ones (including mine). Rather than add a special tag like Base or Context, and rather than using a special character, let's just change our interpretation of links with a missing portion on either side of the pipe, that is [[ link| ]] and [[ |link]].
Here's the proposal: On pages whose titles end with (context) in parentheses, [[ |link]] is interpreted as [[link (context)|link]]. On all pages, [[link (context)| ]] is interpreted that way as well. All other uses of [[|link]] or [[|link]] are simply interpreted as [[link]].
That will make fixing all the links in the Middle Earth, Poker, and other pages much easier, and I don't think it will add any temptation to over-categorize or cause other problems.
It is an open question whether these links are interpreted at save-time or render-time; the latter makes things easier I think, but the former has advantages too. 0
I know, we've spent too much time on this person: but I want to call everyone's attention to his comments in http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3APhilosophy_of_body
Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
I know, we've spent too much time on this person: but I want to call everyone's attention to his comments in http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Talk%3APhilosophy_of_body
Starting with a half-way plausible statement about philosophy, he ends with something close to a declaration of hostilities.
I can't say I'm surprised, considering how harshly and snidely he's been attacked. Everyone in that page seems to be acting like a petulant child, even though they aren't. I'm reminded of the clinic Noam Chomsky gave on the radio on how to be annoyingly self-righteous (actually more than annoying--infuriating might be closer to actuality) two days ago on the NYC public radio station call-in show. Yes, 24 is aggravating. Yes, he's silly and stubborn. But then people call him a troll, and slam him on this mailing list, and say he's doing a thousand evil things and attacking Wikipedia and sleeping with sheep and best friends with Osama bin Laden. And then we're surprised when he falls into the rhetoric of apocalypse?
If you think I'm an arrogant, foolish ass, then it's totally reasonable to think what I wrote above is arrogant and foolish. But it seems to me that people are falling over themselves to justify every unreasonable claim 24 makes.
Yes, Talk:Philosophy of body has heated rhetoric. But that's all it is. 24 obviously *likes* Wikipedia. If we embraced him, showed him love, and made whatever corrections we think necessary to any contributions he makes to Wikipedia *without characterizing his intentions*, we wouldn't need Anthony Zinni or Colin Powell.
Just about the only good thing about having many other Wikipedians think I'm a fool and a troll is that I'm probably the only regular contributor who could tell 24 he's being the same without him thinking that he's being ganged up on.
And it's a silly thing to think, because as gangs go (even net gangs), Wikipedia is pretty weak.
But what's blindingly obvious to those who have been around for a while, or who aren't intrinsically defensive and therefore expect bullying from all corners, isn't always so clear to others.
But then I feel the desire to reconsider all the above words on the weight of my knowlege of what kind of person Vicki is, and that if she is troubled, then I should be to.
These are just my thoughts, worth little unless they have value to you.
--tc
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org