Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki.py/Wiktionary_functionality_discuss... for complete information. The dicussion page on Meta is intended to provide a space for folks from every wiktionary project to discuss and decide upon the behavior and features of the interwiki links bot (RobotGMwikt); until now, there has been no such mechanism. Besides your participation, we also need folks who are able to help translate the dicussion on an ongoing basis as appropriate.
Thanks.
Ariel Glenn
Hoi, The discussion states that it is a policy statement and not a technical discussion.
There are technical reasons why it is not feasible to have a consistent implementation of a different methodology. It is imho a waste of time to discuss what you want to change if it is technically not possible and certainly when this is clear from the start. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/30/07, Ariel T. Glenn ariel@columbia.edu wrote:
Please see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki.py/Wiktionary_functionality_discuss... complete information. The dicussion page on Meta is intended to provide a space for folks from every wiktionary project to discuss and decide upon the behavior and features of the interwiki links bot (RobotGMwikt); until now, there has been no such mechanism. Besides your participation, we also need folks who are able to help translate the dicussion on an ongoing basis as appropriate.
Thanks.
Ariel Glenn
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
On 30/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The discussion states that it is a policy statement and not a technical discussion.
There are technical reasons why it is not feasible to have a consistent implementation of a different methodology. It is imho a waste of time to discuss what you want to change if it is technically not possible and certainly when this is clear from the start. Thanks, GerardM
So please discuss those technical reasons. To not do so would be to waste the discussion and everybody's time. Maybe it's impossibility is also just your opinion. Or if this impossibility has been clear from the start please point us to a clear description of the insurmountable problems.
Thanks.
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
On 7/30/07, Ariel T. Glenn ariel@columbia.edu wrote:
Please see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki.py/Wiktionary_functionality_discuss... complete information. The dicussion page on Meta is intended to provide a space for folks from every wiktionary project to discuss and decide upon the behavior and features of the interwiki links bot (RobotGMwikt); until now, there has been no such mechanism. Besides your participation, we also need folks who are able to help translate the dicussion on an ongoing basis as appropriate.
Thanks.
Ariel Glenn
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Hoi, I have made my point, again, clear on the meta page. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/31/07, Andrew Dunbar hippytrail@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The discussion states that it is a policy statement and not a technical discussion.
There are technical reasons why it is not feasible to have a consistent implementation of a different methodology. It is imho a waste of time to discuss what you want to change if it is technically not possible and certainly when this is clear from the start. Thanks, GerardM
So please discuss those technical reasons. To not do so would be to waste the discussion and everybody's time. Maybe it's impossibility is also just your opinion. Or if this impossibility has been clear from the start please point us to a clear description of the insurmountable problems.
Thanks.
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
On 7/30/07, Ariel T. Glenn ariel@columbia.edu wrote:
Please see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki.py/Wiktionary_functionality_discuss... information. The dicussion page on Meta is intended to provide
a space for folks from every wiktionary project to discuss and decide
upon
the behavior and features of the interwiki links bot (RobotGMwikt);
until
now, there has been no such mechanism. Besides your participation, we
also
need folks who are able to help translate the dicussion on an ongoing
basis
as appropriate.
Thanks.
Ariel Glenn
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
-- http://wiktionarydev.leuksman.com http://linguaphile.sf.net
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have made my point, again, clear on the meta page.
In the bit about handling redirects you say that
As redirects have multiple origins, it cannot be assumed that they have a single origin.
by which you seem to argue that it is impossible that redirects can be handled by a bot at all. But en.wikipedia has had templates like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:R_from_other_capitalisation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:R_from_misspelling for years, which do exactly this kind of thing: flag redirects for categorization, etc., in ways which it is entirely feasible that a bot could pick up on. A redirect with one flag could be treated in one way, while another flag may be treated in another way; and there does not have to be any action taken in treating untagged redirects.
*Muke!
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org