Re: [Wikitech-l] Central interwiki and similar proposals

2010-10-12 Thread Marcus Buck
  An'n 11.10.2010 23:50, hett Strainu schreven:
 Well, Nikola's solution is limited to interwiki links (I think), so it
 has very little to do with those issues (only the name of the page in
 the central wiki, if I remember correctly).
Interwiki links were the design intent but technically it is a very 
small step to include any type of content.
 Regarding the local/remote
 editing, experience has shown me that most people hate to leave their
 home wiki, even if the new wiki is in their native language and has no
 radically different rules. This is especially true for small wikis.
 Editing the data on the central wiki will limit the number of editors.
 This could be a good thing, but I tend to believe it is overall better
 to have many people editing the data.
If you use Commons you have to leave your home wiki too. How would you 
manage disputes about edits when these edits don't happen on-wiki?
And Commons too is English-centered. Many people are working on 
improving the multilinguality of Commons and circumventing the 
limitations of MediaWiki (which really sucks at true multilingual 
support) and are quite successful. The localisation degree of Commons 
varies heavily between languages, but in languages with active 
localizers Commons is easily usable for non-speakers of English. 
Discussions can also be done in languages other than English, just 
general discussions are mostly English-only. But that's an inherent 
issue of any shared content and unfixable. The only alternative to that 
is to not share content (this alternative by the way is in no way 
limited by the existence of a shared depository. If you don't want to 
use the shared content you can always store it locally).
 #2 is in no way linked with number 1. To use the example you have used
 on foundation-l, here is how {{town}} should look in English and
 French for Bucharest:

 {{Town
 |name=Bucharest
 |country=Romania
 |pop=2,000,000
 |lat=45.0
 |lon=26.0
 |elevation=12
 |mayor=Sorin Oprescu
 }}

 {{Ville
 |nom=Bucarest
 |pays=Roumanie
 |pop=2.000.000
 |lat=45.0
 |lon=26.0
 |hauteur=12
 |maire=Sorin Oprescu
 }}
There's a misunderstanding. The town template wouldn't be stored on 
en.wp or fr.wp. It would be stored on the central data repository. 
Therefore the population must be stored in plain numbers (200). 
Any formatting will be done on the local wikis only (via formatnum). 
The country will be stored as RO, the ISO 3166 code and this code will 
be translated back to Romania or Roumanie on the local wiki. The 
city's name too needs to be stored in a format that makes the local name 
in each language accessible.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


Re: [Wikitech-l] Central interwiki and similar proposals

2010-10-11 Thread Marcus Buck
  An'n 11.10.2010 16:13, hett Strainu schreven:
 These days I had a little time to clear my TODO list after Wikimania
 and I tried to find some information about the central interwiki
 repository idea. While it was fairly trivial to find info about the
 proposal itself [0] and the technical details proposed by Nikola
 Smolenski, it was not so easy as to discern the current status of the
 proposal.

 What I want to know is:
 1. Is there support from the community for some extended tests on this
 subject on the Wikimedia websites?
 2. Are there plans to extend the current extensions in order to
 support something like [1], which would be much more interesting, but
 also much more challenging?
 3. Perhaps there are alternate proposals which target the same problem?
There was a Google Summer of Code project: 
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/Reasonably_efficient_interwiki_transclusion.
It's basically ready to use. About the _actual_ implementation you have 
to ask the Foundation developers.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


Re: [Wikitech-l] Central interwiki and similar proposals

2010-10-11 Thread Strainu
2010/10/11 Marcus Buck w...@marcusbuck.org:
 There was a Google Summer of Code project:
 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/Reasonably_efficient_interwiki_transclusion.
 It's basically ready to use. About the _actual_ implementation you have
 to ask the Foundation developers.

Marcus, I would hardly call that project ready to use. It leaves
many issues unresolved, such as:
1. local editing of the remote data with unified/non-unified accounts
2. automatic translation importing from translatewiki (people would
probably want to use localized parameters/template names)
3. all the known limitations noted there :)

It looks like a good start, but I somewhat doubt we will be seeing it
in production soon.

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


Re: [Wikitech-l] Central interwiki and similar proposals

2010-10-11 Thread Marcus Buck
  An'n 11.10.2010 20:13, hett Strainu schreven:
 2010/10/11 Marcus Buckw...@marcusbuck.org:
 There was a Google Summer of Code project:
 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/Reasonably_efficient_interwiki_transclusion.
 It's basically ready to use. About the _actual_ implementation you have
 to ask the Foundation developers.
 Marcus, I would hardly call that project ready to use. It leaves
 many issues unresolved, such as:
 1. local editing of the remote data with unified/non-unified accounts
 2. automatic translation importing from translatewiki (people would
 probably want to use localized parameters/template names)
 3. all the known limitations noted there :)

 It looks like a good start, but I somewhat doubt we will be seeing it
 in production soon.
If in Nikola's solution all this works, I wasn't aware of it. #1 to me 
actually seems like an advantage. If data is changed for all wikis users 
must go to the central wiki to edit it. Otherwise it'll definitely lead 
to problems. #2 also is only a problem if we accept that #1 is wanted as 
a behaviour.

Actually I have no specific preference for any of the two solutions. I 
just wanted to hint at an alternative effort.
The only thing I care about is, that _some_ solution is found and 
implemented. Both solutions can be implemented in a short period of time 
if only somebody cared to start the process. It's the most important 
development step for Wikimedia in years. Possibly ever.
See e.g. 
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060628.html.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


Re: [Wikitech-l] Central interwiki and similar proposals

2010-10-11 Thread Strainu
2010/10/11 Marcus Buck w...@marcusbuck.org:
  An'n 11.10.2010 20:13, hett Strainu schreven:
 2010/10/11 Marcus Buckw...@marcusbuck.org:
 There was a Google Summer of Code project:
 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/Reasonably_efficient_interwiki_transclusion.
 It's basically ready to use. About the _actual_ implementation you have
 to ask the Foundation developers.
 Marcus, I would hardly call that project ready to use. It leaves
 many issues unresolved, such as:
 1. local editing of the remote data with unified/non-unified accounts
 2. automatic translation importing from translatewiki (people would
 probably want to use localized parameters/template names)
 3. all the known limitations noted there :)

 It looks like a good start, but I somewhat doubt we will be seeing it
 in production soon.
 If in Nikola's solution all this works, I wasn't aware of it. #1 to me
 actually seems like an advantage. If data is changed for all wikis users
 must go to the central wiki to edit it. Otherwise it'll definitely lead
 to problems. #2 also is only a problem if we accept that #1 is wanted as
 a behaviour.

Well, Nikola's solution is limited to interwiki links (I think), so it
has very little to do with those issues (only the name of the page in
the central wiki, if I remember correctly). Regarding the local/remote
editing, experience has shown me that most people hate to leave their
home wiki, even if the new wiki is in their native language and has no
radically different rules. This is especially true for small wikis.
Editing the data on the central wiki will limit the number of editors.
This could be a good thing, but I tend to believe it is overall better
to have many people editing the data.

#2 is in no way linked with number 1. To use the example you have used
on foundation-l, here is how {{town}} should look in English and
French for Bucharest:

{{Town
|name=Bucharest
|country=Romania
|pop=2,000,000
|lat=45.0
|lon=26.0
|elevation=12
|mayor=Sorin Oprescu
}}

{{Ville
|nom=Bucarest
|pays=Roumanie
|pop=2.000.000
|lat=45.0
|lon=26.0
|hauteur=12
|maire=Sorin Oprescu
}}

As you can see, there are differences in both the syntax and the data
of the template. The difference in the data can be avoided by keeping
only the common parts, like the coordinates and the iw links,
centralized. #2 refers specifically to the differences in syntax. If
you keep this approach, you're basically keeping people who do not
know English at bay from editing the central wiki. And I think this is
a much more significant problem for smaller languages, which you want
to help.


 Actually I have no specific preference for any of the two solutions. I
 just wanted to hint at an alternative effort.

It was good to know the Foundation invested into that, thanks. :)

 The only thing I care about is, that _some_ solution is found and
 implemented. Both solutions can be implemented in a short period of time
 if only somebody cared to start the process. It's the most important
 development step for Wikimedia in years. Possibly ever.
 See e.g.
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060628.html.

I couldn't agree more on that. I am eager to see more effort into this problem.


 Marcus Buck
 User:Slomox

Strainu

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


Re: [Wikitech-l] Central interwiki and similar proposals

2010-10-11 Thread Krinkle
Template names can be solved by having redirects on the central  
template wiki (which may or may not be the same wiki as the central  
interwiki wiki).

Parameter names can be solved by interface messages like for example  
is done on Commons:

** Template:Town **
{|
! {{int:Name}}
| {{{ {{int:name-param}} }}}
|}
or:
{|
! {{Town/Country-label/{{int:Lang
| {{{ {{Town/Country-param/{{int:Lang}} }}}
|}

** Template:Ville **
#REDIRECT[[Template:Town]]

etc. you get the idea


Regarding the wikis being the same or not.
I think it makes sense for them to be the same or atleast the same  
kind of wiki.

I noticed the current extension for Interlanguage links only extracts  
languagelinks (which are externally parsed) and puts them in the local  
article.
However taking the interwiki transclusion project from GSoC it may be  
possible to use that for [[xx:interwikilinks]] aswell.
This way things like {{FA|xx}} and {{Commonscat|Foobar}} for  
indicating Featured articles and interprojects can be transcluded  
along aswell.

--
Krinkle

Op 11 okt 2010, om 23:50 heeft Strainu het volgende geschreven:

 2010/10/11 Marcus Buck w...@marcusbuck.org:
  An'n 11.10.2010 20:13, hett Strainu schreven:
 2010/10/11 Marcus Buckw...@marcusbuck.org:
 There was a Google Summer of Code project:
 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/Reasonably_efficient_interwiki_transclusion
  
 .
 It's basically ready to use. About the _actual_ implementation  
 you have
 to ask the Foundation developers.
 Marcus, I would hardly call that project ready to use. It leaves
 many issues unresolved, such as:
 1. local editing of the remote data with unified/non-unified  
 accounts
 2. automatic translation importing from translatewiki (people would
 probably want to use localized parameters/template names)
 3. all the known limitations noted there :)

 It looks like a good start, but I somewhat doubt we will be seeing  
 it
 in production soon.
 If in Nikola's solution all this works, I wasn't aware of it. #1 to  
 me
 actually seems like an advantage. If data is changed for all wikis  
 users
 must go to the central wiki to edit it. Otherwise it'll definitely  
 lead
 to problems. #2 also is only a problem if we accept that #1 is  
 wanted as
 a behaviour.

 Well, Nikola's solution is limited to interwiki links (I think), so it
 has very little to do with those issues (only the name of the page in
 the central wiki, if I remember correctly). Regarding the local/remote
 editing, experience has shown me that most people hate to leave their
 home wiki, even if the new wiki is in their native language and has no
 radically different rules. This is especially true for small wikis.
 Editing the data on the central wiki will limit the number of editors.
 This could be a good thing, but I tend to believe it is overall better
 to have many people editing the data.

 #2 is in no way linked with number 1. To use the example you have used
 on foundation-l, here is how {{town}} should look in English and
 French for Bucharest:

 {{Town
 |name=Bucharest
 |country=Romania
 |pop=2,000,000
 |lat=45.0
 |lon=26.0
 |elevation=12
 |mayor=Sorin Oprescu
 }}

 {{Ville
 |nom=Bucarest
 |pays=Roumanie
 |pop=2.000.000
 |lat=45.0
 |lon=26.0
 |hauteur=12
 |maire=Sorin Oprescu
 }}

 As you can see, there are differences in both the syntax and the data
 of the template. The difference in the data can be avoided by keeping
 only the common parts, like the coordinates and the iw links,
 centralized. #2 refers specifically to the differences in syntax. If
 you keep this approach, you're basically keeping people who do not
 know English at bay from editing the central wiki. And I think this is
 a much more significant problem for smaller languages, which you want
 to help.


 Actually I have no specific preference for any of the two  
 solutions. I
 just wanted to hint at an alternative effort.

 It was good to know the Foundation invested into that, thanks. :)

 The only thing I care about is, that _some_ solution is found and
 implemented. Both solutions can be implemented in a short period of  
 time
 if only somebody cared to start the process. It's the most important
 development step for Wikimedia in years. Possibly ever.
 See e.g.
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060628.html 
 .

 I couldn't agree more on that. I am eager to see more effort into  
 this problem.


 Marcus Buck
 User:Slomox

 Strainu

 ___
 Wikitech-l mailing list
 Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l