--- wikipedia-l-request@wikipedia.org a écrit : > Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikipedia-l@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@wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- 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@yahoo.com To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] older versions --> authors/editors Reply-To: wikipedia-l@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@aludra.usc.edu Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions --> authors/editors To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Reply-To: wikipedia-l@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@piclab.com To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions --> authors/editors Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org
(Chuck Smith msochuck@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@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@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org
--- tarquin tarquin@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@aludra.usc.edu Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Reply-To: wikipedia-l@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@piclab.com To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org
(Brion Vibber vibber@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@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@uni-koblenz.de To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions --> authors/editors Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
(Chuck Smith msochuck@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@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions --> authors/editors Reply-To: wikipedia-l@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@planetunreal.com To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions --> authors/editors Reply-To: wikipedia-l@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@bomis.com To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions --> authors/editors Reply-To: wikipedia-l@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