> 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
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