[Wikipedia-l] Page history is good.

Tue Apr 15 16:20:40 UTC 2003

 --- wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org a écrit : >
Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> 	wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. older versions --> authors/editors
> (=?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?=)
>    2. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Brion
> Vibber)
>    3. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Lee
> Daniel Crocker)
>    4. Re: GFDL on printable version (Axel Boldt)
>    5. Re: GFDL on printable version (Brion Vibber)
>    6. Re: GFDL on printable version (Lee Daniel
> Crocker)
>    7. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Andre
> Engels)
>    8. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Erik
> Moeller)
>    9. Re: older versions --> authors/editors
> (tarquin)
>   10. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Jimmy
> Wales)
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:32:37 +0200 (CEST)
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?=
> <msochuck at yahoo.com>
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> What would you think of changing the text "Older
> Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page
> does
> indeed show which authors and editors worked on the
> article.  This would make it easier for people at
> the
> Esperanto Wikipedia to see if they trust the
> writers. 
> For example, two of our most active Wikipedians have
> even written Esperanto grammar books, so people
> would
> know that what they've written is probably more
> authoritative than what others have written.  Also,
> many newbies to Wikipedia don't realize how they can
> find the authors and editors of an article and this
> would make that clearer.
> 
> ...if the people at the English Wikipedia don't like
> this idea, we could just change the translation of
> the
> Esperanto interface from "Malnovaj versioj" to
> "Auxtoroj/Redaktantoj".
> 
> Thanks,
> Chuck
> 
> =====
> Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
> My homepage - http://www.ikso.net/~chuck
> Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/
> 
>
___________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et
> en français !
> Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Brion Vibber <vibber at aludra.usc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Chuck Smith wrote:
> > What would you think of changing the text "Older
> > Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page
> does
> > indeed show which authors and editors worked on
> the
> > article.
> 
> I would find that utterly confusing; I would expect
> such a link to show
> simply a list of individual editors, and would not
> click on it when
> trying to see what the last three changes were. But
> then, I preferred the
> original label, "History".
> 
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:39:50 -0500
> From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> > (Chuck Smith <msochuck at yahoo.com>):
> > What would you think of changing the text "Older
> > Versions" to "Authors/Editors" ...
> 
> I believe it used to say "Article history" which
> would cover
> both uses.  I don't when it changed.
> 
> -- 
> Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>
> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
> "All inventions or works of authorship original to
> me, herein and past,
> are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may
> be used or modified
> for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or
> notification."--LDC
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Axel Boldt <axelboldt at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> --- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> > should we (briefly) mention the GFDL at the foot
> of printable
> > versions?
> > 
> > Currently says:
> > 
> > /Retrieved from 
> >
>
"http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Backus-Naur_Form"
> > It was last modified 10:26 Apr 14, 2003./
> 
> I think the GFDL needs to be mentioned, and it would
> also be nice to
> show the stable URL
>   http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus-Naur_Form
> rather than the internal one given above.
> 
> Axel
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms,
> and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Brion Vibber <vibber at aludra.usc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Axel Boldt wrote:
> > I think the GFDL needs to be mentioned, and it
> would also be nice to
> > show the stable URL
> >   http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus-Naur_Form
> > rather than the internal one given above.
> 
> Another issue is whether we should have a stable URL
> that goes to
> _that particular_ revision. This is something people
> have requested for
> purposes of citing Wikipedia articles in
> bibliographies, etc, where part
> of the point is that people can check your citations
> to see if you quoted
> or interpreted them accurately.
> 
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:55:31 -0500
> From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> > (Brion Vibber <vibber at aludra.usc.edu>):
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Axel Boldt wrote:
> > > I think the GFDL needs to be mentioned, and it
> would also be nice to
> > > show the stable URL
> > >   http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus-Naur_Form
> > > rather than the internal one given above.
> > 
> > Another issue is whether we should have a stable
> URL that goes to
> > _that particular_ revision. This is something
> people have requested for
> > purposes of citing Wikipedia articles in
> bibliographies, etc, where part
> > of the point is that people can check your
> citations to see if you quoted
> > or interpreted them accurately.
> > 
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> 
> I think we'll want static-looking URLs for citable
> revisions,
> so I'd suggest:
> 
>  
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/cite/20021215024500/Backus-Naur_Form
> 
> which gets redirected to
> 
>  
>
.../oldrev.phtml?title=Backus-Naur_Form&time=20021215024500
> 
> That shouldn't be too hard to implement.
> 
> -- 
> Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com>
> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
> "All inventions or works of authorship original to
> me, herein and past,
> are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may
> be used or modified
> for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or
> notification."--LDC
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:26:47 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Andre Engels <engels at uni-koblenz.de>
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> 
> > > (Chuck Smith <msochuck at yahoo.com>):
> > > What would you think of changing the text "Older
> > > Versions" to "Authors/Editors" ...
> >
> > I believe it used to say "Article history" which
> would cover
> > both uses.  I don't when it changed.
> 
> It was changed by eloquence on November 12;
> according to his comment this
> was "as discussed on wikipedia-l". He made a message
> on November 11, saying
> he was making a number of changes, and asking for
> comments. From his
> proposals:
> 
> > - "History" should be "Older versions" or "Page
> history" to be more
> > obvious. Most people are not familiar with the
> concept of article
> > histories.
> 
> Andre Engels
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: 15 Apr 2003 03:44:00 +0200
> From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Chuck Smith
> wrote:
> >> What would you think of changing the text "Older
> >> Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page
> does
> >> indeed show which authors and editors worked on
> the
> >> article.
> 
> > I would find that utterly confusing; I would
> expect such a link to show
> > simply a list of individual editors, and would not
> click on it when
> > trying to see what the last three changes were.
> But then, I preferred the
> > original label, "History".
> 
> I agree that "Authors" doesn't help much. I think a
> less ambiguous term  
> like "Version history" would be best. Consider
> you're in an article about  
> World War II which you found via Google -- now what
> do you expect to find  
> behind a "History" link?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:51:50 +0100
> From: tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com>
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> 
> >>On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Chuck Smith
> wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>What would you think of changing the text "Older
> >>>Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page
> does
> >>>indeed show which authors and editors worked on
> the
> >>>article.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >
> >I agree that "Authors" doesn't help much. I think a
> less ambiguous term  
> >like "Version history" would be best. Consider
> you're in an article about  
> >World War II which you found via Google -- now what
> do you expect to find  
> >behind a "History" link?
> >  
> >
> lol! indeed!
> "page history" is probably clearest.
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 03:15:26 -0700
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> 
> > > - "History" should be "Older versions" or "Page
> history" to be more
> > > obvious. Most people are not familiar with the
> concept of article
> > > histories.
> 
> It sounds like "Page history" would satisfy
> everyone, then?
> 
> --Jimbo

Sounds good.  Then, the Esperanto translation would be
simply "Pagxa historio".

Thanks,
Chuck

=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
My homepage - http://www.ikso.net/~chuck
Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com