Wikipedia NL is very, very slow. And a lot of "faild to conect"
Today we have again some nice publicty in a ezine. New visitors who come to
Wikipedia and can not recieve it do not come back.
Is it not possibel to move some of the .org wikipedias to the server that
now host the .com wikipedias, if that makes the wikipedias faster...
--
Contact: giskart AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be
> True, and as I said, we can check if the user has entered an
> edit comment (good indication for a major change) and if he
> has, the subsequent edit does not replace the previous one.
But what if he didn't? What if he made a major change, posted it, and
then went back to proofread, and was depending on your feature to allow
him to just add comment at the end of the process?
We could save a lot of space by summarizing directly subsequent edits
made by one user into a single edit. User foo edits article bar 10
times, and for each edit, the previous one is deleted. This would also
reduce clutter in RC. Just check if OLD contains a top revision by the
same user and delete it before inserting the new row (preferably as one
transaction).
To avoid involuntary overwriting of one's own words, we could do this
only if the previous edit had no edit comment, and occurred less than 10
minutes ago.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de
Subject speaks for itself. In CVS; also, spiffed up the "Highlight
broken links" user preference text and reformatted preview header
slightly.
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de
The new contri code does not pass $topmark to ucListEdit. Because of
that we lose the [rollback] feature on recent edits (it should still
work for older ones). The way I would fix it is with an additional
title+ns query on RC for each contri, but a smarter SQL query might also
be possible.
Regards,
Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de
The #REDIRECT syntax is our ugliest, because it stands out and is
confusingly rendered as
1. foo
because # is also our numbering syntax.
The disambiguation pages are badly in need of standardization, as they
all look different. If we ever want to change the disambig text, we need
to do it manually on hundreds of pages.
We can solve both problems with an only slightly improved #REDIRECT
syntax:
Tatra
#REDIRECT [[Tatra mountains]]: a mountain range, part of the Carpathian
Mountains, between Poland and Slovakia.
#REDIRECT [[Tatra (car)]]: car brand from the Czech Republic
--
becomes
Tatra
'''Tatra''' can be used to refer to:
1. [[Tatra mountains]]: a mountain range, part of the ..
2. [[Tatra (car)|Tatra]]: car brand from the Czech Republic
This is a disambiguation page; that is, one that just points to other
pages that might otherwise have the same name. If you followed a link
here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the
appropriate specific page.
----
(Note the rightmost parentheses should be auto-removed for aesthetic
reasons.)
As you can see, now our #REDIRECT syntax actually makes sense. If
there's just one #REDIRECT, we just put the user on the respective page.
If there are several, we give him a choice.
I suggest a slightly different syntax to provide a redirect reason:
#REDIRECT [[Tatra mountains]] // namco
Becomes
Redirected to Tatra mountains. Reason: [[Wikipedia:Naming
conventions|naming convention]]
As I suggested earlier, these reasons could be loaded from an array in
the Language.* file, so that we avoid having to standardize these texts
manually.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de
On the test wiki, I have created a special page to maintain
interlanguage links. These are stored in a new database (wiki-intl).
Please have a look at
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3AIntl
and try the examples.
This is an early attempt at best. What will follow (if all of you
approve the basic concept :-) is a link from each article to the "add"
and "zoom" pages (see link above). For example, clicking on "Link
another language" (or something) will bring up the "add a link" page,
with source title and language filled in.
Then, there should be an option to automagically generate missing
language backlinks (probably on the "zoom" page).
I called the page "international issues" because I hope that it will
later hold the interface translation strings, as well as the user database.
Magnus
P.S.: I posted this to wikitech-l rather than wikipedia-l, as it seems
to be too technical and too alpha for the unwashed masses right now ;-)
It strikes me that some of our nice "extra" features, like Most
Wanted, are slow and could also be just as useful (or nearly so) if
they were not generated 'realtime', but rather if they were generated
only once per day.
Now when Wikipedia goes down all visitors of Wikipedia
get a error.
Wikipedians, the come back when the system is back up
but new visitors mayby not.And it gives a bad impression.
I would be very nice that when wikipedia.org goes down
all traffic goes to a page that says that Wikipedia is
down and will be back up as soon as possibel.
Giskart