tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com writes:
But this is a significant move. Like mav said, it's *symbolic*. it's not the solution, but it's part of it. It shows that the other languages are siblings -- younger siblings, yes
Gareth responded:
I disagree. Its only symbolic, and thats why its its neither significant, nor part of any real solution.
It's an inconvenience to the vast majority of the users, and the only gain is that it is a meaningless sop to people who (IMHO) don't have a legitimate grievance in the first place.
Nothing ends a conversation quite like saying "your concern isn't legitimate." Regardless of how it's intended, it comes across as "Go away kid, you're bothering me."
Aside from that, how would the move to en. be an inconvenience aside from having to log in? And if having to log in is such an inconvenience, why do I have to log in every month anyway? Given that we do have to log in every month or so, are you perhaps splitting hairs in calling the proposed move an inconvenience?
kq
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com writes:
Aside from that, how would the move to en. be an inconvenience aside from having to log in?
Link rot
Gareth Owen wrote:
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com writes:
Aside from that, how would the move to en. be an inconvenience aside from having to log in?
Link rot
Can you expand on this?
I don't think anyone is proposing that www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson would ever not work as it does now. It would be a pure alias for en.wikipedia.com.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 11:00, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Gareth Owen wrote:
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com writes:
Aside from that, how would the move to en. be an inconvenience aside from having to log in?
Link rot
Can you expand on this?
I don't think anyone is proposing that www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson would ever not work as it does now. It would be a pure alias for en.wikipedia.com.
My understanding is that people are proposing that the www urls be made into redirects, not pure aliases, or even links to various language entries, or a redirect to the to-be-created portal page, or to the to-be-created foundation, at some point. That would be consistent with the theory that the only fair thing to do is to have total language-equivalence in urls.
People have floated having www be reserved for a) a portal and b) the administration/organization. That would seem to preclude pure aliases for entries.
"The Cunctator" skribis:
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 11:00, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Gareth Owen wrote:
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com writes:
Aside from that, how would the move to en. be an inconvenience aside from having to log in?
Link rot
Can you expand on this?
I don't think anyone is proposing that www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson would ever not work as it does now. It would be a pure alias for en.wikipedia.com.
My understanding is that people are proposing that the www urls be made into redirects, not pure aliases, or even links to various language entries, or a redirect to the to-be-created portal page, or to the to-be-created foundation, at some point.
My understanding is:
(1) http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson should be the same page as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson.
Maybe it could be a 301 redirect (from www to en) - where is the problem?
(2) We should not use http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/* for anything else in the future.
(3) The portal page should be at http://www.wikipedia.org/, anything that is about the foundation could for example be in http://www.wikipedia.org/foundation/*, everything about _all_ wikipedias (special functions, etc.) maybe could be in http://www.wikipedia.org/all/*, etc.
There is so much namespace free ...
Paul
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 10:53, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Aside from that, how would the move to en. be an inconvenience aside from having to log in? And if having to log in is such an inconvenience, why do I have to log in every month anyway? Given that we do have to log in every month or so, are you perhaps splitting hairs in calling the proposed move an inconvenience?
Just for example, that one inconvenience is a major thing. I'd say it should be removed 1) ASAP and 2) before we consider doing more url-redirecting.
What removal means is consolidating the userspaces so that cookies can point to .wikipedia.org instead of xxx.wikipedia.org.
Doing so has many, many benefits for the long-term health and viability of the project.
[Note: The post that I'm replying to didn't get sent to <intlwiki-l>. Or perhaps it was sent separately; I'm not sure.]
The Cunctator wrote:
Koyaanis Qatsi wrote:
Aside from that, how would the move to en. be an inconvenience aside from having to log in? And if having to log in is such an inconvenience, why do I have to log in every month anyway? Given that we do have to log in every month or so, are you perhaps splitting hairs in calling the proposed move an inconvenience?
Just for example, that one inconvenience is a major thing. I'd say it should be removed 1) ASAP and 2) before we consider doing more url-redirecting.
Erm, you two have to log in every month or so? I don't.
And we should move the cookie to simply <wikipedia.org>. Is there any reason why this wouldn't work? (Other than forcing everybody on every wiki to login one last time.)
What removal means is consolidating the userspaces so that cookies can point to .wikipedia.org instead of xxx.wikipedia.org.
Now *that*'s not a bad idea at all! Does anybody know (is there an easy way to check), are there any overlaps between usernames on different language wikis? (Not counting the same person appearing on different wikis, of course.)
Doing so has many, many benefits for the long-term health and viability of the project.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org