On 14/06/12 00:39, jmccl...@hypergrove.com wrote:
Transclusion is surely fundamental to wiki application design. The
[[wikidata]] proposal by contrast is a client-server API, such things an
artifact of the 20th century. What is the point of it here?
Ultimately the problem you're grappling with
While I agree that it is desirable to support simple, preformatted
Infoboxes that can, with minimal effort be re-used in a large number
of language versions of Wikipedia, I strongly disagree with the demand
to make this the only choice.
I think the present Wikidata approach to allow local
Hoi,
Technically there is nothing stopping Wikidata from hosting multiple
infoboxes on the same subject. The big thing about such infoboxes is that
their layout is the same for all subjects in the same category. This does
not mean that every one looks the same but it does mean they follow a
On 14 June 2012 12:33, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, when Wikidata provides data and info boxes, it does not mean that
any project is compelled to use it. As Wikidata matures, it will become
increasingly clear that it is not the best practice.
that may be, but
Wikidata publishing infoboxes and Wikipedias using them is again
the client-server model.
Not sure where this chestnut is coming from.
Transclusion is as close to client-server as my cooking is to being
gourmet!
There's NO API. so I don't understand your commenst at all,
sorry.
On
I strongly disagree with the demand to make this the only choice.
-
Gregor, I'm a bit confused -- are you talking about the transclusion
design approach in this statement? because, if so, I'd think there'd be
a number of infobox styles that can be selected by an author on the
wikidata
Gregor, I'm a bit confused -- are you talking about the transclusion design
approach in this statement?
Yes, in the sense that it demands to be the only access to wiki data
content in a Wikipedia.
because, if so, I'd think there'd be a number of
infobox styles that can be selected by an
Gregor says
Or are you proposing to simply use the existing
template programming
with the only the difference that wikidata is the
only mediawiki where
the properties can be accessed within templates?
Much of my argument
assumes that you are looking for a non-template
based infobox
renderer, I
I base my belief that [[wikitopics]] is operationally faster on a
basic difference between the two designs, as I think the wikipedias will
operate faster if they merely transclude infoboxes of their choice, at
their own speed, from the wikidata central repository.
Transclusion is
surely
Hi John,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:39 AM, jmccl...@hypergrove.com wrote:
I base my belief that [[wikitopics]] is operationally faster on a basic
difference between the two designs, as I think the wikipedias will operate
faster if they merely transclude infoboxes of their choice, at their own
I don't understand why it's so unlikely, Lydia. ANY educational
article (science, math, engineering) can have graphics whose underlying
data is not language-sensitve. How about timelines on a bio article --
that's anothr example. Or a map within a place article? Or financial
data within a
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:13 AM, jmccl...@hypergrove.com wrote:
I don't understand why it's so unlikely, Lydia. ANY educational article
(science, math, engineering) can have graphics whose underlying data is not
language-sensitve. How about timelines on a bio article -- that's anothr
example.
12 matches
Mail list logo
