Please do not use NFS-mounted /home directory as temporary
directories for i/o intensive tasks, there's /tmp for that.
I had to kill wikistats, as it killed zwinger...
BR,
Domas
Hi folks,
This feature request is surely not new but I would be interested to know its
status.
Is there a way by which data (text/media) from one wikipedia page (SOURCE) can
be 'embedded' into another page (DESTINATION) such that there is merely a
reference on the DESTINATION page which reflects changes in data on the SOURCE
page.
Such a feature would for instance allow different kinds of views and
organizations of the same SOURCE data. As an example one could have one page
with a table of populations for each of the countries in each year. And the
Country pages on wikipedia would have their infoboxes referencing data from this
page.
thanks
Shyamal
ps: Please leave any response for me on my english wikipedia talk page
en:User:Shyamal
Here's an interesting one. I was checking the block log on en: for a
certain user to see if they had been blocked, and the log indicated
they hadn't been. But checking the log for the blocking admin, it
showed that the admin apparently had blocked the user.
The thing is, the admin had blocked User:example, with a lowercase
first letter. But it's only possible to search the logs with
uppercase, ie User:Example, presumably because en is set to have
uppercase first letters.
So my question is, does the block still work if the admin types the
username with lowercase?
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
James Day has asked (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Qif)
for documentation on the interesting behaviour of the "Parameter Default"
feature, the mainstay of operation for [[en:Template:qif]] which has
recently caused so much stir.
I have been able to locate [[m:Help:Parameter default]] but this seems to be
an after-the-fact description of how the system behaves, rather than a
before-the-fact specification, which seems to be what James is after.
Does anybody know where such a beast might be hiding (possibly in plain
sight :-) ?
According to James Day, Brion and Tim are likely to be the best candidates
because the information is partially stored in their heads (quote from
[[en:template talk:qif]]):
::See mediawiki.org and the brains of Brion and Tim Starling. Note that
changing what is at mediawiki.org without changing those brains would just
result in inaccurate documentation. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 20:19, 18
December 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to search at mediawiki.org, but I always seem to end up at the
meta page I refer to above.
HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
For Google-style page ranking, it is supposedly important to have
links from one page to another. If the word "Colombia" is
mentioned in the article about "Bogota" but not linked, this
relationship will be missed in the ranking. One way to avoid such
misses would be for a robot to take the list of article titles and
search for their occurance in the text body of all articles, and
insert brackets where they are missing.
No, I don't suggest that such a robot should be used in Wikipedia.
For one thing, we do have articles about many common words and for
every year in history, but it would not make sense to make a link
for every mentioning of a year or such common words.
What I would like to ask is whether this kind of text mining is
common and has a name? So this is more of a general question
about information retrieval (IR) in large text corpuses than about
Wikipedia. Are there arithmetic rules for when such links should
be avoided?
One place where such automatic linking could be interesting is a
scanned paper encyclopedia, where no links exist beforehand, e.g.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Student%27s_Reference_Work
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
I would like to announce that I have begun a complete rewrite of the
validation function. The new one is hereby called "Review feature" and
is implemented as an extension. Eventually, I will remove the
SpecialValidation.php file and all related code from the phase3 module.
The sole technical purpose of this rewrite is to give Brion peace of
mind :-)
This new extension uses the already existing "validate" table in the
database. I though it a waste of time and energy to replace it.
This initial version (in CVS, "Review" directory, "extensions" module)
currently lacks many features of the Validation function. But, I have
managed to place the review data in the sidebar, making reviews faster
and, IMHO, more intuitive.
The sidebar display lacks the ability to comment the review. Also, you
cannot see your old review data for that page. Should I add a Special
page similar to the Validation tab? Or would that just be confusing?
There will, of course, be statistic pages, as known from the Validation
function.
Magnus
[[:en:Category:If Templates]]
[[:en:Category:Boolean Templates]]
Check out some of the code in them, too, but make sure you haven't eaten
first.
The perpetrators of this l33tn3ss are trying to gut [[:en:WP:AUM]] by
consensus, because everyone knows database performance and computer
science in general can be determined by voting. Or maybe it can't.
What would the Stupid Mediawiki Tricks in these things do to the
database and the cache structure? If it's as bad as I suspect it would,
could some of you please stop by [[:en:WT:AFD]] and describe reality to
them?
- d.