Not that i have objections against this change, but
changes to the
software/userinterfase of the Wikipedias should be
announced formaly and
well in advance. Somthing like this; Give 3 weeks notice.
This is way too long. I don't have time to track each individual patch over three weeks, especially since
patches >become obsolete quite quickly as other changes are committed.
Please do consider that it is probably not worth telling us anything under at least a week notice. Not enough time to understand, then to translate, then for people to react, then to translate again. If a patch is so necessary that it can't wait a week, please proceed without asking. Otherwise, please consider we are maybe not in such a hurry that the other wikipedians don't have time to maybe give their point of view or just to be informed.
Besides, intwiki-l is not for feature discussion (see
the list >description). wikitech-l is, and if feature discussion concerns >wikipedia policies, it should be copied/moved to wikipedia-l.
I am officially asking that the international wikipedia list be discarded. It is useless, and providing the false feeling to international people that it is "their" list, and that they don't need to register to the *main* *english* one. This is very misleading. It would be better not to pretend things, but to make them clear.
Please also make official wikipedia-l and wikitech-l are the only lists that are worth considering as far as general policies are concerned for similar reasons.
However, also realise that just doing so will prevent international wikipedias to have any real involvement in general policy matters. Today, in 5 hours, my mail box received 85 messages. I do not feel fluent in english enough to read all of them. I'll discard some of them, hoping no essential issue for us was raised, for I know nobody else will tell them.
Notice that the above policy is not used by anyone
else either, >so I don't even see why you bring it up.
So, if I follow you, not having other people follow policies is enough reason for you not to follow them enough ? If so, why are these policies still there ? Let's discard them to.
Members of the international Wikipedias that want to
take part >in feature discussions should subscribe to wikitech-l and/or >wikipedia-l, if we spread this stuff over three lists, we'll >never get anything done.
Probably true. But, that is not what is widely understood among "foreigners" though. Hence, I think I am gonna remove international-l from our mailing list page, let's be blunt and realistic. I already understood quite many years ago that not understanding english would just get me nowhere.
What I can agree on is to send strings that need to
be >translated to intwiki-l before committing a change, and to >wait a few days for translations to come in, then to commit >the change together with the translations. But if not all >translations come in within a reasonable amount of time, they >will have to be added later, meaning that the user interface
will have some English in it until the translations
are
submitted. If you check some of the international
Wikipedias, >you will notice that this is the case for quite a few of them, >for features with which I had nothing to do.
We can manage with that; we have no choice anyway if we want to participate a bit but to understand english; so a couple of features in english won't be much trouble (though some will protest-their problem).
However, to tell the truth, I won't be able to translate your feature for the very good reason that though I tried to concentrate very hard on it, I have not being able to understand what that checkbox in the watch list was all about. I just couldnot figure what you were talking about.
So, could you spend a tiny little bit of your time just telling us what is going to appear ? I am sure it is a good choice, since everybody seems to agree with, but I am just curious.
Also, I have read your proposition (that if I understood well you decided to implement today if nobody complained about it...maybe some answers are in the 85 messages...) about the counting of articles. Please could you tell me whether it will apply to international wikipedias or just to the english one ? If it does, I am not sure I understood well when the article will stop being considered a bot or a stub
- when at least 2 edits have been made after the creation, whoever the authors of the edits are ? - 2 edits by authors, creators excluded ? - 2 edits by 2 different authors, creators excluded ?
Though I understand well the interest of this (and definitly support the change of count to exclude some small or automatic entries), I would be happy then if you could provide a system to list articles that are *above* a certain number of characters (no stub) and not automatically generated. I think your system is gonna exclude some specialized articles I think would deserve accessing to the status of articles. I would be glad - in my own field of expertise - to go and humanly edit them enough for them to be considered real articles.
I hope I didnot misunderstand entirely what you were planning to do. When I don't understand things, I usually wait for further discussion to enlighten me, but here, I didnot see much discussion. So...I am not sure I understood well.
Thank you in advance for your answers
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Hi Anthere,
Please do consider that it is probably not worth telling us anything under at least a week notice. Not enough time to understand, then to translate
Um, how much work is it to translate two text strings? That it may be hard to understand in some cases is true, we probably need a demo wiki to better demonstrate functionality (there's one at piclab.com/wiki, but I don't have access to its code).
I am officially asking that the international wikipedia list be discarded.
I'm not the right person to talk to here, but I tend to agree. The wikipedia-l list *is* crowded, though, so perhaps we need a different kind of separation.
However, also realise that just doing so will prevent international wikipedias to have any real involvement in general policy matters. Today, in 5 hours, my mail box received 85 messages. I do not feel fluent in english enough to read all of them.
Your English is more than good enough to be no excuse ;-). Traffic can get a bit demanding, I agree.
Notice that the above policy is not used by anyone
else either, >so I don't even see why you bring it up.
So, if I follow you, not having other people follow policies is enough reason for you not to follow them enough ? If so, why are these policies still there ?
They are not. Giskart is, to my knowledge, the first person to bring this up.
However, to tell the truth, I won't be able to translate your feature for the very good reason that though I tried to concentrate very hard on it, I have not being able to understand what that checkbox in the watch list was all about. I just couldnot figure what you were talking about.
OK, here's how it will look. You edit an article:
'''Biology''' is the study of [[life]] and its processes. The term_ biology was coined in the late [[1700s]] by the French naturalist__ Pierre-Antoine de Monet, Jean-Baptiste de [[Lamarck]]. ____________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
Summary: __________ [ ] This is a minor edit [ ] Watch this article
[Save page] [Show preview]
Note that the above will probably look awful if your e-mail client displays mail in a proportional font (that is, variable width letters).
The "Watch this article" box, when checked, means that the article will be added to your watchlist (an existing feature, but previously only accessible using the "Watch this article" link).
Furthermore, if the user preference "Watch new and modified articles" is activated, this checkbox will be active by default whenever you edit an article. You can still deactivate it, though.
Any clearer?
Also, I have read your proposition (that if I understood well you decided to implement today if nobody complained about it...maybe some answers are in the 85 messages...) about the counting of articles.
That's a misunderstanding, I'll change the navigation bar of the English Wikipedia only as agreed upon on wikipedia-l. The article count is on my to do list, but if anyone else wants to implement this, be my guest. If implemented, it will likely be done in such a way that it will still be possible to use the previous count.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Um, how much work is it to translate two text strings? That it may be hard to understand in some cases is true, we probably need a demo wiki to better demonstrate functionality (there's one at piclab.com/wiki, but I don't have access to its code).
I do, but the source is old, and the database is probably not consistent with the "live" one. It also contains quite a few dirty hacks of mine that never made it to the CVS.
I asked for a demo/test wikipedia at least twice, but noone ever listens to me... ;-)
There should be a little script to remove the source and database at the test wiki, and replace it with the CVS version and some articles from the en database (say, all articles starting with "A"). It should be run every time some changes at the test wiki are commited to the CVS. That way, we could develop at home, and have all users test it in a "sandbox", before upgrading the real thing.
Magnus
On Die, 2002-11-12 at 11:56, Magnus Manske wrote:
There should be a little script to remove the source and database at the test wiki, and replace it with the CVS version and some articles from the en database (say, all articles starting with "A"). It should be run every time some changes at the test wiki are commited to the CVS. That way, we could develop at home, and have all users test it in a "sandbox", before upgrading the real thing.
Sounds reasonable, can you set this up?
I don't think we need to remove/update the database that's there -- we just need some test data, not current data
Regards,
Erik
Anthere wrote in part:
I am officially asking that the international wikipedia list be discarded. It is useless, and providing the false feeling to international people that it is "their" list, and that they don't need to register to the *main* *english* one. This is very misleading. It would be better not to pretend things, but to make them clear.
However, also realise that just doing so will prevent international wikipedias to have any real involvement in general policy matters. Today, in 5 hours, my mail box received 85 messages. I do not feel fluent in english enough to read all of them. I'll discard some of them, hoping no essential issue for us was raised, for I know nobody else will tell them.
The problem is that we don't have <enwiki-l>. Whether or not we keep <intlwiki-l>, we need <enwiki-l>.
Mav wrote a post recently about redesigning the lists, a specific proposal that built on your earlier suggestion. I could have sworn that he posted it on <intlwiki-l>, so I hope that you saw it while you were still reading that.
-- Toby
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org