I noticed some things on wikipedia that IMHO should be avoided:
* Creating half a dozen redirects to a single topic. A recent example of this might be the "ArXiv.org e-print archive", for which "Xxx.lanl.gov", "Www.arXiv.org", "ArXiv.org", and "ArXiv" redirects were created. There's no need to do this if the redirected titles aren't very common and mentioned in the article text anyway. The search function will find them without the redirect, and noone will go through the "All Pages" list if there's a search function.
* Links to the talk page of an article appended to the article. Having "Talk" links in the article text is obsolete, as at least one link to the talk page will show anyway (or two, if you use the sidebar). When editing articles, if you see these links, please delete them.
* Ebooks and other long texts. With the coming software update, the sidebar will contain a link to "Long Pages" (like an inverse stub list). Please have a look at this once it is available, and remove yet another copy of "The Origin Of Species" (that's not what wikipedia is for, right?), and try to break apart long "real" articles into pieces that are more easy to swallow;)
Magnus
Magnus,
Was there a specific reason why you created two indexes for each of the id columns in table cur and table old?
-- Jan Hidders
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:
I noticed some things on wikipedia that IMHO should be avoided:
I have some advice in turn: this list of (good!) rules should go on [[rules to consider]] (which itself should now live at [[wikipedia:rules to consider]] if it doesn't already).
- Creating half a dozen redirects to a single topic. A recent example
of this might be the "ArXiv.org e-print archive", for which "Xxx.lanl.gov", "Www.arXiv.org", "ArXiv.org", and "ArXiv" redirects were created. There's no need to do this if the redirected titles aren't very common and mentioned in the article text anyway. The search function will find them without the redirect, and noone will go through the "All Pages" list if there's a search function.
Sounds OK, but really, what harm does it do if someone does this?
- Links to the talk page of an article appended to the article. Having
"Talk" links in the article text is obsolete, as at least one link to the talk page will show anyway (or two, if you use the sidebar). When editing articles, if you see these links, please delete them.
I'd agree fully with this given that people are completely aware of the Talk namespace and how to get to it.
- Ebooks and other long texts. With the coming software update, the
sidebar will contain a link to "Long Pages" (like an inverse stub list). Please have a look at this once it is available, and remove yet another copy of "The Origin Of Species" (that's not what wikipedia is for, right?), and try to break apart long "real" articles into pieces that are more easy to swallow;)
I now agree with this. If you had asked about nine months ago, I wouldn't be so sure.
Larry
Magnus wrote:
- Creating half a dozen redirects to a single topic. A recent
example of this might be the "ArXiv.org e-print archive", for which "Xxx.lanl.gov", "Www.arXiv.org", "ArXiv.org", and "ArXiv" redirects were created. There's no need to do this if the redirected titles aren't very common and mentioned in
Links to redirect pages are evil, because they are not found by the "Pages that link here" function of the new software (or are they?). But the user has no easy way of knowing whether he links to a redirect page or a real page. When the user saves a page, the software already checks if each link goes to an existing or non-existing page, resulting in an underlined or ?-link, respectively, and it could just as well check if the link goes to a redirect page, and display such links in a third way, perhaps underlined in green color.
I sometimes take my favorite year-in-review and open the "Pages that link here" in another window and edit the page in the main window. This function is really useful.
On Monday 11 February 2002 14:24, Magnus Manske wrote:
I noticed some things on wikipedia that IMHO should be avoided:
- Creating half a dozen redirects to a single topic. A recent example of
this might be the "ArXiv.org e-print archive", for which "Xxx.lanl.gov", "Www.arXiv.org", "ArXiv.org", and "ArXiv" redirects were created. There's no need to do this if the redirected titles aren't very common and mentioned in the article text anyway. The search function will find them without the redirect, and noone will go through the "All Pages" list if there's a search function.
I agree in principle, though there may be individual exceptions. Do you know how many ways "Dostoyevsky" has been (mis)spelled in English over the last century or so? <g>
Lately I've made redirects just to give 0-byte stubs something to do. A deletion-mechanism as proposed in another post today should clear this up
Also, this is a vexed issue with a number of mythologies, particularly Celtic and Norse where many different spellings refer to the same topic e.g. Odin, Wotan, Woden, Odd, Od, Odinn, etc, etc, etc... Without multiple redirects we would probably end up with a topic for each of them: not good, not good at all...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Clasquin" clasqm@mweb.co.za To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com; "Magnus Manske" Magnus.Manske@epost.de; "Wikipedia-L@Nupedia. Com" wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Some thoughts
On Monday 11 February 2002 14:24, Magnus Manske wrote:
I noticed some things on wikipedia that IMHO should be avoided:
- Creating half a dozen redirects to a single topic. A recent example of
this might be the "ArXiv.org e-print archive", for which "Xxx.lanl.gov", "Www.arXiv.org", "ArXiv.org", and "ArXiv" redirects were created. There's no need to do this if the redirected titles aren't very common and mentioned in the article text anyway. The search function will find them without the redirect, and noone will go through the "All Pages" list if there's a search function.
I agree in principle, though there may be individual exceptions. Do you know how many ways "Dostoyevsky" has been (mis)spelled in English over the last century or so? <g>
Lately I've made redirects just to give 0-byte stubs something to do. A deletion-mechanism as proposed in another post today should clear this up
-- Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa) clasqm@mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za http://www.geocities.com/clasqm This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC
...hey, at least a wild goose chase gives you some exercise-Neal
Stephenson
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Yes, but only one or two are actually used in ENglish (Wotan and Odin, I guess). The others could be mentioned within the text of the actual article, so that the search function will find them. Redirects are only good if they are used in other articles.
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Steve Callaway Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:18 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Some thoughts
Also, this is a vexed issue with a number of mythologies, particularly Celtic and Norse where many different spellings refer to the same topic e.g. Odin, Wotan, Woden, Odd, Od, Odinn, etc, etc, etc... Without multiple redirects we would probably end up with a topic for each of them: not good, not good at all...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Clasquin" clasqm@mweb.co.za To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com; "Magnus Manske" Magnus.Manske@epost.de; "Wikipedia-L@Nupedia. Com" wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Some thoughts
On Monday 11 February 2002 14:24, Magnus Manske wrote:
I noticed some things on wikipedia that IMHO should be avoided:
- Creating half a dozen redirects to a single topic. A recent
example of
this might be the "ArXiv.org e-print archive", for which
"Xxx.lanl.gov",
"Www.arXiv.org", "ArXiv.org", and "ArXiv" redirects were created. There's no need to do this if the redirected titles aren't very common and mentioned in the article text anyway. The search function
will find
them without the redirect, and noone will go through the "All Pages" list if there's a search function.
I agree in principle, though there may be individual exceptions. Do you know how many ways "Dostoyevsky" has been (mis)spelled in
English over the
last century or so? <g>
Lately I've made redirects just to give 0-byte stubs something to do. A deletion-mechanism as proposed in another post today should
clear this up
-- Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa) clasqm@mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za http://www.geocities.com/clasqm This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC
...hey, at least a wild goose chase gives you some exercise-Neal
Stephenson
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Monday 11 February 2002 21:25, Magnus Manske wrote:
Yes, but only one or two are actually used in ENglish (Wotan and Odin, I guess). The others could be mentioned within the text of the actual article, so that the search function will find them. Redirects are only good if they are used in other articles.
But that's the point: I don't know when somebody is going to start writing an article on early Burgundian mythology, but I can make sure that if he does, the particular name the Burgundians used will link to a central page called [[Odin]]. Or if someone starts writing about Dostoyevski in an article on [[Russian literature]], a little proactive redirecting avoids the situation where you have parallel [[Dostoyevsky]] and [[Dostoyevski]] pages that someone now needs to harmonise.
I do agree that it can be overdone.
Yes, but then you get Swedes contributing, Icelanders, Norwegians, Finns, Estonians, etc, etc, all creating new articles. Much better to basket them all together, and get the redirects working for you.
In English we certainly recognise: Odin, Od (appears in a number of mediaeval folk tales), Wotan, Woden, and probably a few more.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Magnus Manske" Magnus.Manske@epost.de To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:25 PM Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Some thoughts
Yes, but only one or two are actually used in ENglish (Wotan and Odin, I guess). The others could be mentioned within the text of the actual
article,
so that the search function will find them. Redirects are only good if
they
are used in other articles.
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Steve Callaway Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:18 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Some thoughts
Also, this is a vexed issue with a number of mythologies, particularly Celtic and Norse where many different spellings refer to the same topic e.g. Odin, Wotan, Woden, Odd, Od, Odinn, etc, etc, etc... Without multiple redirects we would probably end up with a topic for each of them: not good, not good at all...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Clasquin" clasqm@mweb.co.za To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com; "Magnus Manske" Magnus.Manske@epost.de; "Wikipedia-L@Nupedia. Com" wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Some thoughts
On Monday 11 February 2002 14:24, Magnus Manske wrote:
I noticed some things on wikipedia that IMHO should be avoided:
- Creating half a dozen redirects to a single topic. A recent
example of
this might be the "ArXiv.org e-print archive", for which
"Xxx.lanl.gov",
"Www.arXiv.org", "ArXiv.org", and "ArXiv" redirects were created. There's no need to do this if the redirected titles aren't very
common
and mentioned in the article text anyway. The search function
will find
them without the redirect, and noone will go through the "All Pages" list if there's a search function.
I agree in principle, though there may be individual exceptions. Do
you
know how many ways "Dostoyevsky" has been (mis)spelled in
English over the
last century or so? <g>
Lately I've made redirects just to give 0-byte stubs something to do.
A
deletion-mechanism as proposed in another post today should
clear this up
-- Michel Clasquin, D Litt et Phil (Unisa) clasqm@mweb.co.za/unisa.ac.za http://www.geocities.com/clasqm This message was posted from a Microsoft-free PC
...hey, at least a wild goose chase gives you some exercise-Neal
Stephenson
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org