Template names can be solved by having redirects on the central
template wiki (which may or may not be the same wiki as the central
interwiki wiki).
Parameter names can be solved by interface messages like for example
is done on Commons:
** Template:Town **
{|
! {{int:Name}}
| {{{ {{int:name-param}} }}}
|}
or:
{|
! {{Town/Country-label/{{int:Lang}}}}
| {{{ {{Town/Country-param/{{int:Lang}} }}}
|}
** Template:Ville **
#REDIRECT[[Template:Town]]
etc. you get the idea
Regarding the wikis being the same or not.
I think it makes sense for them to be the same or atleast the same
kind of wiki.
I noticed the current extension for Interlanguage links only extracts
languagelinks (which are externally parsed) and puts them in the local
article.
However taking the interwiki transclusion project from GSoC it may be
possible to use that for [[xx:interwikilinks]] aswell.
This way things like {{FA|xx}} and {{Commonscat|Foobar}} for
indicating Featured articles and interprojects can be transcluded
along aswell.
--
Krinkle
Op 11 okt 2010, om 23:50 heeft Strainu het volgende geschreven:
2010/10/11 Marcus Buck <wiki(a)marcusbuck.org>rg>:
An'n 11.10.2010 20:13, hett Strainu
schreven:
2010/10/11 Marcus
Buck<wiki(a)marcusbuck.org>rg>:
There was a Google Summer of Code project:
<http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/Reasonably_efficient_interwiki_transclusion
>.
It's basically ready to use. About the _actual_ implementation
you have
to ask the Foundation developers.
Marcus, I would hardly call that project
"ready to use". It leaves
many issues unresolved, such as:
1. local editing of the remote data with unified/non-unified
accounts
2. automatic translation importing from translatewiki (people would
probably want to use localized parameters/template names)
3. all the known limitations noted there :)
It looks like a good start, but I somewhat doubt we will be seeing
it
in production soon.
If in Nikola's solution all this works, I wasn't aware
of it. #1 to
me
actually seems like an advantage. If data is changed for all wikis
users
must go to the central wiki to edit it. Otherwise it'll definitely
lead
to problems. #2 also is only a problem if we accept that #1 is
wanted as
a behaviour.
Well, Nikola's solution is limited to interwiki links (I think), so it
has very little to do with those issues (only the name of the page in
the central wiki, if I remember correctly). Regarding the local/remote
editing, experience has shown me that most people hate to leave their
home wiki, even if the new wiki is in their native language and has no
radically different rules. This is especially true for small wikis.
Editing the data on the central wiki will limit the number of editors.
This could be a good thing, but I tend to believe it is overall better
to have many people editing the data.
#2 is in no way linked with number 1. To use the example you have used
on foundation-l, here is how {{town}} should look in English and
French for Bucharest:
{{Town
|name=Bucharest
|country=Romania
|pop=2,000,000
|lat=45.0
|lon=26.0
|elevation=12
|mayor=Sorin Oprescu
}}
{{Ville
|nom=Bucarest
|pays=Roumanie
|pop=2.000.000
|lat=45.0
|lon=26.0
|hauteur=12
|maire=Sorin Oprescu
}}
As you can see, there are differences in both the syntax and the data
of the template. The difference in the data can be avoided by keeping
only the common parts, like the coordinates and the iw links,
centralized. #2 refers specifically to the differences in syntax. If
you keep this approach, you're basically keeping people who do not
know English at bay from editing the central wiki. And I think this is
a much more significant problem for smaller languages, which you want
to help.
Actually I have no specific preference for any of the two
solutions. I
just wanted to hint at an alternative effort.
It was good to know the Foundation invested into that, thanks. :)
The only thing I care about is, that _some_
solution is found and
implemented. Both solutions can be implemented in a short period of
time
if only somebody cared to start the process. It's the most important
development step for Wikimedia in years. Possibly ever.
See e.g.
<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060628.html
>.
I couldn't agree more on that. I am eager to see more effort into
this problem.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
Strainu
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l