Hoi, A first version of the "patrol" functionality is on-line. However, you can mark your own contributions as patrolled. This I think is a smudge on the face of this widely requested functionality. Just a simple compare against the change it is patrolling for might do the trick..
For your information, on the nl:wikipedia there was a temporary truce whereby no references were made to the nl:wiktionary. This truce was agreed because the interproject links were promissed for release 1.4. The relevant bugzilla entry has one of the highest number of requests. As the interproject links have not been implemented, references to wiktionary are created again in the nl:wikipedia. The argument that the developpers do want they want and according to their own priorities is a valid one. However when things are agreed in the "user world" based on expectations from developpers, it is also reasonable that when these expecations are not met, it is not without consequences.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:08:13 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:
Hoi, A first version of the "patrol" functionality is on-line. However, you can mark your own contributions as patrolled. This I think is a smudge on the face of this widely requested functionality. Just a simple compare against the change it is patrolling for might do the trick..
Another problem I found is that it is impossible to check a page creation as 'patrolled' after the page has already been edited.
Andre Engels
Hmmmm,
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708
I opened that enhancement feature (it is not a bug) in october during the Great Dutch Crisis. It is indeed the second most wanted feature.
Erik proposed himself to write it for release 1.4.
What is this status ? Is it written or not yet ? Was there a problem ? Is it not well enough defined for development ? Is there someone else willing to write it ? When is release 1.5 planned ?
Ant
Gerard Meijssen a écrit:
For your information, on the nl:wikipedia there was a temporary truce whereby no references were made to the nl:wiktionary. This truce was agreed because the interproject links were promissed for release 1.4. The relevant bugzilla entry has one of the highest number of requests. As the interproject links have not been implemented, references to wiktionary are created again in the nl:wikipedia. The argument that the developpers do want they want and according to their own priorities is a valid one. However when things are agreed in the "user world" based on expectations from developpers, it is also reasonable that when these expecations are not met, it is not without consequences.
Thanks, GerardM
Anthere-
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708 Erik proposed himself to write it for release 1.4. What is this status ?
I'll code it soon. The biggest open question is what syntax to use. I think I'll go for [[Sidebar:Wiktionary:Bla]] (where "Sidebar:" would have to be localizable).
If I understand him correctly, Brion has argued that these links should be automagically displayed if there is an article with the same title on a sister project wiki. That would be nice, but harder to implement.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Anthere-
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708 Erik proposed himself to write it for release 1.4. What is this status ?
I'll code it soon. The biggest open question is what syntax to use. I think I'll go for [[Sidebar:Wiktionary:Bla]] (where "Sidebar:" would have to be localizable).
If I understand him correctly, Brion has argued that these links should be automagically displayed if there is an article with the same title on a sister project wiki. That would be nice, but harder to implement.
Regards,
Erik
Hoi, It is not a good idea to have automagic links; the reason for this is that it does not take into account that there are these disambiguation pages and consequently namaes that do not match, it does not take into account that wiktionary has both lower and upper case characters. As to the syntax, why not a short IPL for InterProject Link. It would also be nice it the shorthand like w: and wikt: would be possible as well.
One nice feature would be, if you have a link one way to have it automagically also the other way. Another point is, do we allow for IPL's that cross a language divide (this would ask for [[IPL:w:en:Bla]]) ??
Thanks, GerardM
For some projects it is good to have automagic links. The English wiktionary is one. That project doesn't support disambiguation pages. The automagic link generator code could certainly be aware of which capitalisation mode is in use in each interproject and merge or split links accordingly. In the case of the English Wiktionary, we would only want automagic for the default namespace. Articles in other namespaces may have counterparts in interprojects with different titles. (Main Page is a special exception in the default namespace though).
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:43:29 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Anthere-
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708 Erik proposed himself to write it for release 1.4. What is this status ?
I'll code it soon. The biggest open question is what syntax to use. I think I'll go for [[Sidebar:Wiktionary:Bla]] (where "Sidebar:" would have to be localizable).
If I understand him correctly, Brion has argued that these links should be automagically displayed if there is an article with the same title on a sister project wiki. That would be nice, but harder to implement.
Regards,
Erik
Hoi, It is not a good idea to have automagic links; the reason for this is that it does not take into account that there are these disambiguation pages and consequently namaes that do not match, it does not take into account that wiktionary has both lower and upper case characters. As to the syntax, why not a short IPL for InterProject Link. It would also be nice it the shorthand like w: and wikt: would be possible as well.
One nice feature would be, if you have a link one way to have it automagically also the other way. Another point is, do we allow for IPL's that cross a language divide (this would ask for [[IPL:w:en:Bla]]) ??
Thanks, GerardM
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Andrew Dunbar wrote:
For some projects it is good to have automagic links. The English wiktionary is one. That project doesn't support disambiguation pages. The automagic link generator code could certainly be aware of which capitalisation mode is in use in each interproject and merge or split links accordingly. In the case of the English Wiktionary, we would only want automagic for the default namespace. Articles in other namespaces may have counterparts in interprojects with different titles. (Main Page is a special exception in the default namespace though).
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
When you say that automagic links are cool, you are talking about one way magic from en:wiktionary to en:wikipedia only. I think it would be much easier to have a bot create these interproject links because otherwise you are asking for some complicated code that can only be used for one project and in only one direction.
If anything, it would be easier to code for interlanguage links between the non capitalizing wiktionaries. They ARE bidirectional and they are always correct. Then again, a bot can do this as well.
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:43:29 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Anthere-
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708 Erik proposed himself to write it for release 1.4. What is this status ?
I'll code it soon. The biggest open question is what syntax to use. I think I'll go for [[Sidebar:Wiktionary:Bla]] (where "Sidebar:" would have to be localizable).
If I understand him correctly, Brion has argued that these links should be automagically displayed if there is an article with the same title on a sister project wiki. That would be nice, but harder to implement.
Regards,
Erik
Hoi, It is not a good idea to have automagic links; the reason for this is that it does not take into account that there are these disambiguation pages and consequently namaes that do not match, it does not take into account that wiktionary has both lower and upper case characters. As to the syntax, why not a short IPL for InterProject Link. It would also be nice it the shorthand like w: and wikt: would be possible as well.
One nice feature would be, if you have a link one way to have it automagically also the other way. Another point is, do we allow for IPL's that cross a language divide (this would ask for [[IPL:w:en:Bla]]) ??
Thanks, GerardM
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
No I'm not talking about "one way magic from en:wiktionary to en:wikipedia only". I'm talking mainly about between all the Wiktionaries mainly. en.wiktionary to en.wikipedia would be less a little less useful because the Wikipedia article as often as not has a different form of the word or a synonym or something else unexpected. Of course nonmagical interwikis would be able to supply these and should look identical on the formatted page.
The people running the show might be able to take a guess as to whether magic or bots would take up more bandwidth or processing time. Bots would have to crawl the databases and continuously update. Magic would have to query some special index each time a page is generated. A bot would also put a lot of bloat in edit histories. If a bot has an error it could be a bunch of work to go back and fix its changes. If the magic code had an error we would only have to fix the magic code.
As a programmer I tend to think the magic would be better, but I don't have the database experience of the guys running the show so it would be nice to hear their opinions.
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:23:08 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:
Andrew Dunbar wrote:
For some projects it is good to have automagic links. The English wiktionary is one. That project doesn't support disambiguation pages. The automagic link generator code could certainly be aware of which capitalisation mode is in use in each interproject and merge or split links accordingly. In the case of the English Wiktionary, we would only want automagic for the default namespace. Articles in other namespaces may have counterparts in interprojects with different titles. (Main Page is a special exception in the default namespace though).
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
When you say that automagic links are cool, you are talking about one way magic from en:wiktionary to en:wikipedia only. I think it would be much easier to have a bot create these interproject links because otherwise you are asking for some complicated code that can only be used for one project and in only one direction.
If anything, it would be easier to code for interlanguage links between the non capitalizing wiktionaries. They ARE bidirectional and they are always correct. Then again, a bot can do this as well.
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:43:29 +0100, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Anthere-
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708 Erik proposed himself to write it for release 1.4. What is this status ?
I'll code it soon. The biggest open question is what syntax to use. I think I'll go for [[Sidebar:Wiktionary:Bla]] (where "Sidebar:" would have to be localizable).
If I understand him correctly, Brion has argued that these links should be automagically displayed if there is an article with the same title on a sister project wiki. That would be nice, but harder to implement.
Regards,
Erik
Hoi, It is not a good idea to have automagic links; the reason for this is that it does not take into account that there are these disambiguation pages and consequently namaes that do not match, it does not take into account that wiktionary has both lower and upper case characters. As to the syntax, why not a short IPL for InterProject Link. It would also be nice it the shorthand like w: and wikt: would be possible as well.
One nice feature would be, if you have a link one way to have it automagically also the other way. Another point is, do we allow for IPL's that cross a language divide (this would ask for [[IPL:w:en:Bla]]) ??
Thanks, GerardM
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org