On 3/16/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/16/06, Steve Bennett
<stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > A really dumb thing that would get some of the way there would just
> > add an element in the history with the comment "Split from
[[Original
article]] revision [[permanent link]]". Then
people could navigate
back to that and the chain would be unbroken. Much simpler than the
database having to be smart.
Dunno about you, but I do that anyway. In fact I did this this week,
splitting [[German grammar]] into [[German nouns]] etc. For the first
edit summary of the new article, I add "split from [[German
grammar]]". A link to the version of the parent article before the
split would be nice, but can be determined by hand simply by comparing
dates.
Right. But obviously making it hardcoded/automagic would mean that
such a summary would be genuinely meaningful in a gneral sense and
make it much more likely to be used; it would also make it easier for
further functionality to be built on -- such as something that lets
you split off a section, leaving only a summary of the contents.
This would be neat. A 'proper' way to split out a section, or to
merge pages, or to extensively quote/excerpt one article in another,
that does the 'right thing' wrt edit history as best that can be done
atm. I don't know that the issue of copying and pasting content from
one article to another within a wiki has ever been fully addressed.
I'm currently working on a tool to fix the
referencing on a page, but
I'll put such features on my list...
What do you mean by 'fix referencing' ?
It converts inline [url] footnotes into <ref>[url]</ref> notes; replaces
multiple instances of the same ref with <ref name="" />, sticks in
<references /> at the end, a bunch of other things, etc.
Not ready for primetime but I've been working on it for the Abramoff
articles.