Hiho,
I will be on a conference next week with limited email access and then
three weeks on holiday in the baltic states essentially without email
access. I had been hoping to start the betatest before this, but well,
things always take longer than you think :-)
So, see you later,
Philipp
Hiho,
I have thought a bit about the text of the infobox and I would like to
change two things. First of all, for reviewed revisions, the text
should state the name of the reviewer, to enhance transparency. And
then, I consider the text a tad long and therefore, a bit confusing to
the reader. Maybe we could shorten it to the essence. In the german
setting, this would look like:
This is the latest quality revision, approved by [[User:Reviewer]] on
24 June 2007. The current revision is usually editable and more up to
date. There are 0 revisions [[Difflink|awaiting review]].
Respectively:
This is the latest sighted version. The latest quality revision of
this page was approved by [[User:Reviewer]] on 24 June 2007. The
current revision is usually editable and more up to date. There are 3
revisions [[Difflink|awaiting sighting]].
What do you think?
Bye,
Philipp
Hiho,
I think it is at this point useful to describe the missing features a
bit more precise. in particular, since I will be on a conference for
one week from next sunday on and after that on holiday for three
weeks. If anybody here thinks: "Ah, I know how to do that, please just
do it." In particular, Jörgs timetable is now such, that, although he
is still willing to help andwill be helping from time to time, we
cannot rely on him.
i) The Watchlist.
Behind every article in the watchlist, the appropriate icon should
show whether the current version is reviewed, sighted or nothing. If
it is nothing, the red minus should show and this should be a link to
the last sighted version. Thus, the users can sight articles from
their watchlist very easily.
ii) Recent changes.
Same as above. Here Aaron has already done some stuff, which has not
been synched with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3.
iii) The GUI
Aarons GUI is working on all skins. The design provided by Jörg does
only work on monobook and it is probably more useful for the german
version. Currently, it can be seen at
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~stable/phase3de/index.php?title=Irrlicht
(e.g.). These are the points that are missing:
# The GUI should be changeable in mediawiki settings (so that Aarons
and Jörgs are both usable).
# The box that appears when clicking on an icon should overlap the
text, not move it around.
# The icon should be placed outside the content box, on same height as
the lemma, to the right.
# The icon that is should correspond to the type of version the reader
is seeing with one difference to the first point name that unsighted
is not the red, but a grey minus.
# In the box, a description of the levels (the yellow bubbles with
descriptions) is not useful in the german setting and should therefore
be turned off.
As you can see, it is really not much anymore.
Bye,
Philipp
Hi folks,
although both Aaron and Jörg keep eluding my requests for some
definite time tables like Jelly, they cannot keep it a secret that the
implementation of the specs is nearly finished. Therefore, we should
start the planning of the next phase, namely testing this on a broader
basis.
First of all, we need a wiki and a datadump. Any suggestions?
Furthermore, we need people to test this. Of course, the people on
this list should be there, but that is the point where we would want
to open up the test more. Personally, I'd say that we spread the word
carefully.
Finally, there is the question of what to test. The implementation was
done in a more flexible way than in the original german proposal, to
allow for more tweaking to the needs of one community or the other.
However, a test is not so good of we do not test in the way it will be
turned on in the wiki. Therefore, I suggest either testing at first
only the simpler original functionality.
Cheers,
Philipp
Hiho,
I believe it is now time to report bugs a bit more systematically. So,
how do Aaron and Joerg want it? Use Bugzilla? Use a discussion page on
the testwikis? Or simply use this thread on the mailinglist?
If the last one is fine until now, here is the first bug ;-)
If I'm not logged in and the current revision is sighted, I do see the
currrent revision, but still have no edit button. Thus, when I click
on current revision, the version does not change (although the edit
button appears). Furthermore, the "Current Revision"-Tab does not
disappear. IMHO it should be that, first of all, the current revision
tab should disappear and the edit button appears instead and
furthermore, if the current revision is the default one, the edit
button should be there immediately.
Bye,
Philipp
Hiho,
for the new Wikis, here are the passwords:
Username: WP
Password: stable
This is mainly to be able to continue working in quiet and because we
want to decide when to release this feature or news about it by
ourselves. Thus, if you want to share the username and the password
with somebody, please make sure that the circle of people who know it
remains small for the time being.
Bye,
Philipp
Hi,
As it did come up in the past that things like {{neutrality}}, {{cleanup}} and
such maybe can be replaced by this extension too and as the currently
suggested interface (http://www.baach.de/wpdesign/Main_Page_2.html) has
quality related flags which are not really useful for tagging an individual
version only (such as readability of a text) I ask if the design is flexible
enough to support flags per article (and not only per article version) too.
These flags would be binary flags that are applied to an article until they
are explicitely removed again. Examples would
be: "Neutrality", "Cleanup", "Featured Article"...
Cheers, Arnomane
Hiho,
RS has brought up the question about differences in possible setting
for the german proposal. We have lost track of this, but I would like
to bring the topic up again. So, a short summary of the different
possibilities.
i) There are two different flags with one level each, called
"gesichtet" und "geprüft". A version is "gesichtet", if the flag
"gesichtet" is one, or "geprüft" if geprüft is one.
ii) There is just one flag called "quality" with two levels. A version
is "gesichtet", if the flag has level one, it is called "geprüft" if
it has level 2.
Currently, the last option is turned on at
http://www.baach.de/phase3de/index.php/Main_Page. Is there any real
difference between the two options? Does it matter which one we
choose?
Bye,
Philipp
