Hoi, Maybe... but it assumes that we have plenty of time and work sequently. Both are not the case and as it is, the framework is broken.to the extend that people refuse to use it. So yes, ideally you want to fix many issues nicely and in a collaborative manner. At the same time our readers are disappearing from our old platform and new editors are not happening on the old platform.
The question is very much to what extend we can suffer all the baggage and backlog from the past. The question is very much what to do when we do not have that 80% on a subject that stops other developments. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 September 2014 21:58, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/14 11:46, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 09/02/2014 02:52 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
OK, I could buy that [fixing image pages]. But then why not fixing that *first*, so that any MV implementation coming afterwards would be smooth?
In the best of worlds, that would have been ideal.
Now, no doubt I'm going to be branded a cynic for this, but have you ever /tried/ to standardize something on a project? Obviously, my frame of reference is the English Wikipedia and not Commons; but in a world where there exists at least six distinct templates whose primary function is to transclude a single "<references/>" onto a page and where any attempt to standardize to one of them unfailingly results in edit wars, that doesn't seem like a plausible scenario.
I have. It's a lot of work to set up and keep on track, and can take a goodly long while to get going at all, but when it succeeds, it's totally AWESOME.
Wasn't on Wikimedia, but should be totally doable here, too, provided the time, energy, and utter insanity required. Principles are the same.
-I
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe