A topic that was briefly discussed several times on this list in the past is the automated "wikification" of pages. I think it is time to work on that, is there is a need.
Some wish to ban all HTML code from the wiki articles, though I find this rather extreme. Others prefer to use HTML as much as possible, especially if copying from other (free) web sources.
IMHO, the best was is to use wiki tags where they are available, and leave the complicated stuff (like tables) to HTML. A function that could help with that could be invoked as follows:
1. After or prior to editing, as standard setting. This would enforce wikification, but reduce the "editing freedom", thus probably not a good idea. 2. After or prior to editing, as a user option. If you check that option on your user page (default:off), wikification would take place when you edit an article. 3. As a button on the edit page. Like "Preview", maybe "Wikify & Preview".
The functions that could be performed (and that I can think of) are:
1. Replacement of HTML tags by wiki tags (namely, "<b>" and "<i>", maybe "<h1>" as well) 2. Eliminating links to redirect pages by changing the link in question to the target of the redirect 3. Marking [broken links]] and [[more broken links] 4. Optimizing external links with too many [] (like [[http://www.google.com]]) 5. Optimizing [[link|links]] to [[link]]s 6. Removing [[Talk:thispage|Talk]] links (at the end of the page)
I am sure you can think of some more details that have always bugged you, but that were (be themselves) not important enough to call for a function;)
We could use this for rather fancy things as well:
7. In the preview, mark words (or word combinations) that are currently plain text, but that do exist as a topic in the database (to find pages one could link to). 8. In the preview, mark all numbers that could be dates (more link candidates). 9. Automatically put the title phrase in bold if it appears in the first paragraph.
Thoughts? Comments? Threats? ;)
On mer, 2002-02-27 at 13:30, Magnus Manske wrote:
The functions that could be performed (and that I can think of) are:
- Replacement of HTML tags by wiki tags (namely, "<b>" and "<i>", maybe
"<h1>" as well) 2. Eliminating links to redirect pages by changing the link in question to the target of the redirect
Hmm, maybe. Sometimes redirects are wrong, though!
- Marking [broken links]] and [[more broken links]
- Optimizing external links with too many [] (like
Question: why do we have the separate forms [X] for external links and [[X]] for internal links? Unless we're going to add http:, ftp:, news: or mailto: namespaces, I don't see much possibility of conflict.
There may be good historical reasons I am not aware of.
- Optimizing [[link|links]] to [[link]]s
Please don't! Not only is the result very ugly, but it would lead to inconsistent link appearance for irregular and regular plurals ([[foot|feet]] vs [[hand]]s), never mind the issue of other languages.
- Removing [[Talk:thispage|Talk]] links (at the end of the page)
I am sure you can think of some more details that have always bugged you, but that were (be themselves) not important enough to call for a function;)
We could use this for rather fancy things as well:
- In the preview, mark words (or word combinations) that are currently
plain text, but that do exist as a topic in the database (to find pages one could link to). 8. In the preview, mark all numbers that could be dates (more link candidates). 9. Automatically put the title phrase in bold if it appears in the first paragraph.
This would be even more fun if we had a WYSIWIG editor. Just think of all the myriad colors and wavy underlines and mysterious icons we could bedazzle the poor confused users with! Or, wait, were we supposed to be *nice* to the users? :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
Question: why do we have the separate forms [X] for external links and [[X]] for internal links? Unless we're going to add http:, ftp:, news: or mailto: namespaces, I don't see much possibility of conflict.
There may be good historical reasons I am not aware of.
"Good" I don't know, but the historical reasons are these:
In the original UseMod, CamelCase was internal, and [] was external. We wanted spaces, so someone came up wtih the idea of [[]].
--Jimbo
On mer, 2002-02-27 at 13:55, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
Question: why do we have the separate forms [X] for external links and [[X]] for internal links? Unless we're going to add http:, ftp:, news: or mailto: namespaces, I don't see much possibility of conflict.
There may be good historical reasons I am not aware of.
"Good" I don't know, but the historical reasons are these:
In the original UseMod, CamelCase was internal, and [] was external. We wanted spaces, so someone came up wtih the idea of [[]].
(thunks head) Ah, right. [http://some.url Better title] vs [Some Topic|Better title]
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On mer, 2002-02-27 at 13:30, Magnus Manske wrote:
The functions that could be performed (and that I can think of) are:
- Replacement of HTML tags by wiki tags (namely, "<b>" and "<i>", maybe
"<h1>" as well) 2. Eliminating links to redirect pages by changing the link in question to the target of the redirect
Hmm, maybe. Sometimes redirects are wrong, though!
On mer, 2002-02-27 at 15:40, kband@www.llamacom.com wrote:
From a user perspective, I'd rather have more redirects than
links like [[Winter Olympic Games|Winter Olympics]], since the redirects are "invisible", while the pipe-linking is an ugliness on the edit side (especially when they accumulate).
Another reason that redirecting is better is because it reduces duplication of work--instead of everyone having to write [[democracy|democratic]] every time they want to link "democratic", a single redirect allows everyone to just write [[democratic]].
But I'd also like the REDIRECT functionality improved.
What kind of improvements?
The new software renders [[hand|hands]] and [[hand]]s the same as a single link (try it!), so it would be a nice optimization on the edit side to use the latter. Again, I like the reduction of pipes as much as possible.
Hey, never noticed that before, that's kinda nice! Objection withdrawn. (Though I would note two things about this feature: first, it's currently restricted to word extensions using the lowercase Latin letters a-z. Second, some languages are not normally written with spaces between words; a lowercase English word thrown in right after a linked word could extend a link where it's not really warranted. This might be something we want to be able to enable/disable on a per-wiki basis.)
Note to Magnus: would it kill you to put a few comments in your code? :) I understand what that part's doing now that the effect has been explained to me, but...
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
From: kband@www.llamacom.com
The new software renders [[hand|hands]] and [[hand]]s the same as a single link (try it!), [...]
Hmm, isn't that a bit language specific? I'd prefer it if we didn't have language specific things in our central code base.
-- Jan Hidders
On ĵaŭ, 2002-02-28 at 08:06, Jan Hidders wrote:
From: kband@www.llamacom.com
The new software renders [[hand|hands]] and [[hand]]s the same as a single link (try it!), [...]
Hmm, isn't that a bit language specific? I'd prefer it if we didn't have language specific things in our central code base.
What the actual code does isn't quite so specific. If a [[link]] is immediately followed by some chunk of the lowercase letters [a-z], the link gets expanded over that area. So the entire word will appear as a link in: [[link]]s = [[link|links]] [[link]]ing = [[link|linking]] [[ligilo]]n = [[ligilo|ligilon]] [[I forgot the]]space = [[I forgot the|I forgot thespace]] etc.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
From: "Brion L. VIBBER" brion@pobox.com
On ĵaŭ, 2002-02-28 at 08:06, Jan Hidders wrote:
From: kband@www.llamacom.com
The new software renders [[hand|hands]] and [[hand]]s the same as a single link (try it!), [...]
Hmm, isn't that a bit language specific? I'd prefer it if we didn't have language specific things in our central code base.
What the actual code does isn't quite so specific. If a [[link]] is immediately followed by some chunk of the lowercase letters [a-z], the link gets expanded over that area. So the entire word will appear as a link in: [[link]]s = [[link|links]] [[link]]ing = [[link|linking]] [[ligilo]]n = [[ligilo|ligilon]] [[I forgot the]]space = [[I forgot the|I forgot thespace]]
Ok. Then I have no problem with it.
-- Jan Hidders
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 23:30, Magnus Manske wrote:
A topic that was briefly discussed several times on this list in the past is the automated "wikification" of pages. I think it is time to work on that, is there is a need.
<snip>
Thoughts? Comments? Threats? ;)
Yeah. If you don't implement this by tomorrow I'm coming to get you!
Apart from tables, the only html code I have consistently found indispensable is <br>. We certainly don't need things like <p> </p> pairs. My vote is for a "Wikfy and preview" button.
I thought #5 was being done already? #7 through 9 would need to be thought about carefully. For instance, "Joe Bloggs died in [[1978]] at the ripe old age of 92" should not become "Joe Bloggs died in [[1978]] at the ripe old age of [[92]]". A newbie might just OK the change.
From: "Magnus Manske" Magnus.Manske@epost.de
- Replacement of HTML tags by wiki tags (namely, "<b>" and "<i>", maybe
"<h1>" as well)
To be honest, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of fiddling with the input of the user, even if it is only an option. In general software that tries to guess what I *actually* meant usually irritates me endlessly. Adding more and more options also doesn't make the software more usable and maybe even a bit scary for novice users.
If we really don't want these tags [don't worry, I know I'm the only one who feels that way :-)] then we have to be unequivocal about it; we replace them everywhere with a script and from that moment on the tags we don't want don't work anymore. But some halfhearted approach that is optional is not going to work and only makes things more complicated then they have to be.
- Eliminating links to redirect pages by changing the link in question to
the target of the redirect
I don't see what problem is solved by that. Do you also want the change all the links on existing pages if a page with real contents becomes redirected?
- Marking [broken links]] and [[more broken links]
I never had problems with finding those now.
- Optimizing external links with too many [] (like
Who says it has too many brackets? I would say that this is "[<link to google>]".
- Optimizing [[link|links]] to [[link]]s
Language specific.
- Removing [[Talk:thispage|Talk]] links (at the end of the page)
It's better to do this everywhere in one big fell swoop with a script instead of waiting until somebody comes along to edit the page and has the option turned on.
I am sure you can think of some more details that have always bugged you, but that were (be themselves) not important enough to call for a
function;)
Well what does bug me is that the replacement of ~~~ doesn't show up in the preview. And wouldn't it be nice if we always added the time with a signature? Sorry for this shameless plug, but you asked. :-)
We could use this for rather fancy things as well:
- In the preview, mark words (or word combinations) that are currently
plain text, but that do exist as a topic in the database (to find pages
one
could link to).
Ah, now that is something that I would find very useful, especially when wikifying imported stuff. Doesn't sound very cheap though so it should definitly be an option or a special link you can click to do this.
- In the preview, mark all numbers that could be dates (more link
candidates).
That's overdoing it IMO. If the user wanted to link it he or she only needed to place brackets around it.
- Automatically put the title phrase in bold if it appears in the first
paragraph.
Could be useful, but in my opinion not useful enough for adding yet another option that can be turned on and off.
Thoughts? Comments? Threats? ;)
What I am a bit missing is a priority list of bugs that is maintained by our great leader (yes, that's you :-}) and that we should be working on. That would not only be useful for us, but also give the users an idea of what we are doing about their problems. Or would that make you feel too much like a manager? :-P
-- Jan Hidders
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org