Re: [Wikitech-l] Unicode equivalence
Hi, If you don't still have this thread, the background is that the Malayam projects want to, and are, using Unicode 5.1 for five characters that have composed code points in 5.1, and decomposed in 5.0. The equivalences are: CHILLU NN 0D23, 0D4D, 200D0D7A CHILLU N 0D28, 0D4D, 200D0D7B CHILLU RR 0D30, 0D4D, 200D0D7C CHILLU L0D32, 0D4D, 200D0D7D CHILLU LL 0D33, 0D4D, 200D0D7E Somewhere in the server code, these are normalized to 5.1 for the ml projects. Problem: http://ml.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%81%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%81%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%BBaction=history What you see happening is Interwicket trying to create the language links. It adds the correct link(s), to the 5.0 forms on the other wikts; then on the next scan of the language links tables it removes the links as invalid, as the 5.1 titles don't exist on the other wikts. This then repeats. (;-) The problem is that it can't write the correct link, as the text normalization fixes it. The other direction isn't a problem, the links are to the 5.0 forms, and when followed are normalized to 5.1 in the title lookup, and the page found. I'm not (yet) suggesting a particular solution, there are several possibilities (from fairly decent to grotesque hackery ...). But would someone tell me where in the server code this is done? I have not been able to find it. Then I can understand a bit better, possibly just fix it in the bot code somehow, or suggest a fix server-side. Best Regards, Robert ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Unicode equivalence
We should probably normalise to 5.1 on all wikis. I can view the 5.0 characters but not the 5.1 ones, though. But would someone tell me where in the server code this is done? I have not been able to find it. Then I can understand a bit better, possibly just fix it in the bot code somehow, or suggest a fix server-side. http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/languages/classes/LanguageMl.php?revision=61282view=markup ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
Hi everyone, I'm preparing a patch against FlaggedRevs which includes changes that Howie and I worked on in preparation for the launch of its deployment onto en.wikipedia.org . We started first by creating a style guide describing how the names should be presented in the UI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology Then we sat down and did the string substitution. I've got some double checking left to do, but it's pretty much ready for deployment. I've put the patch here for now: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23623 The original plan that Aaron and I hatched up was that I would check in the changes into trunk, and then he would fix. However, seeing theFlaggedRevs - Do you forget about other projects? thread on foundation-l gave me pause: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/thread.html#58577 We fully recognize that the strings we plan to use on en.wikipedia.orgprobably don't make sense in a lot of different contexts, even English language wikis. We really want to get this release out the door, but we don't want to leave a huge mess in the process. Is there an expedient but correct-enough approach to solving this problem? Rob ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] question about user_group dump
Hi, everyone, Thanks for reading. I am a sociological research. I have used the dump of Wikipedia English enwiki-20100312-user_groups.sql for my research. I am confused by 'accountcreator' 'founder' and 'confirmed' meaning, would you please to introduce? As I know, users of wikipedia can change their status by becoming helper, admin or joining other groups. Since when, the user groups like this data showed, the date this date collected? How I am supposed to do if I want the data showing the change of user status? Thanks very much for help! Zeyi ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] question about user_group dump
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:22 PM, zh...@york.ac.uk wrote: Hi, everyone, Thanks for reading. I am a sociological research. I have used the dump of Wikipedia English enwiki-20100312-user_groups.sql for my research. I am confused by 'accountcreator' 'founder' and 'confirmed' meaning, would you please to introduce? Confirmed users are ones that have been granted the autoconfirmed right explicitly. Accountcreator was a special group greated for enwiki that bypasses the account creation limits so they can help other people make accounts for themselves. Founder is a special right created for Jimmy Wales as founder of Wikipedia. The rights have been historically been similar (recently changed though) to that of a Steward. As I know, users of wikipedia can change their status by becoming helper, admin or joining other groups. Since when, the user groups like this data showed, the date this date collected? How I am supposed to do if I want the data showing the change of user status? You'd need to check the data from the logging table to see when user rights were changed on individual users. -Chad ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] question about user_group dump
As I know, users of wikipedia can change their status by becoming helper, admin or joining other groups. Since when, the user groups like this data showed, the date this date collected? How I am supposed to do if I want the data showing the change of user status? You'd need to check the data from the logging table to see when user rights were changed on individual users. -Chad Also note that some information will be inside meta logs table, and really old sysopping actions won't be recorded at all. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, I'm preparing a patch against FlaggedRevs which includes changes that Howie and I worked on in preparation for the launch of its deployment onto en.wikipedia.org . We started first by creating a style guide describing how the names should be presented in the UI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology [snip] I'm concerned that the simplified graphical explanation of the process fosters the kind of misunderstanding that we saw in the first slashdot threads about flagged revision... particularly the mistaken belief that the process is synchronous. People outside of the active editing community have frequently raised the same concerns on their exposure to the idea of flagged revisions. Common ones I've seen Won't people simply reject changes so they can make their own edits? Who is going to bother to merge all the unreviewed changes on a busy article, they're going to lose a lot of contributions! None of these concerns really apply to the actual implementation because it's the default display of the articles which is controlled, not the ability to edit. There is still a single chain of history and the decision to display an article happens totally asynchronously with the editing. The illustration still fosters the notion of some overseeing gatekeeper on an article expressing editorial control— which is not the expected behaviour of the system, nor a desired behaviour, nor something we would even have the resources to do if it were desirable. In particular there is no per-revision analysis mandated by our system: Many edits will happen, then someone with the right permissions will look at a delta from then-to-now and decide that nothing is terrible in the current version and make it the displayed version. It's possible that there were terrible intermediate versions, but it's not relevant. I have created a poster suitable for distribution to journalists http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection.png (Though the lack of clarity in the ultimate naming has made it very difficult to finalize it. If anyone wants it I can share SVG/PDF versions of it). ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] Wikimania 2010: Call for Participation Extended
Due to numerous requests we have extended the submission deadline for Wikimania 2010 as follows: * Abstract Registration: May 24, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time) * Notification for workshops: May 29, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time) * Notification for panels, tutorials, presentations: June 3, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time) See the Call for Participation for more details: http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/CFP Thank you for helping make Wikimania 2010 a successful event. :-) See you in Gdansk, July 9-11! With best regards, Wikimania Team -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2010: Call for Participation Extended
2010/5/22 Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org: Due to numerous requests we have extended the submission deadline for Wikimania 2010 as follows: * Abstract Registration: May 24, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time) ... which is May 25, 06:59 UTC * Notification for workshops: May 29, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time) May 30, 06:59 UTC * Notification for panels, tutorials, presentations: June 3, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time) June 4, 06:59 UTC Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: I have created a poster suitable for distribution to journalists http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection.png I have revised the graphic based on input from Andrew Gray and others. http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection3.png ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.comwrote:
This was suggested on foundation-l by Chad, but I'll repeat it here:
reuse messages as little as possible. If you're using the word
foobar in two slightly different meanings and think other languages
might want to translate each instance differently, use two different
messages with the same English content. This allows translators (and
sysops customizing stuff in the MediaWiki: namespace) to use different
translations for each of them.
Hi Roan,
Let me make sure I understand your proposal by walking through an example
that's actually in the patch: revreview-hist-basic
In an old version, this was sighted revision. In the current version,
it's checked revision. In the proposed new version, it's accepted
revision. That particular message is used in quite a few places in the
code:
./specialpages/ReviewedVersions_body.php:69:: wfMsgHtml(
'revreview-hist-basic' );
./FlaggedRevs.hooks.php:108:'sightedRev' =
wfMsgHtml( 'revreview-hist-basic' ),
./FlaggedArticleView.php:635: : 'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php:813: :
'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php:1306: :
'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php:1318: :
'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php:1332: :
'revreview-hist-basic'
This, of course, isn't the norm, but it isn't exceptionally rare, either. A
typical use of this in context:
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1303- if ( $oldRevQ !== false ) {
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1304- $msg = $oldRevQ
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1305- ?
'revreview-hist-quality'
./FlaggedArticleView.php:1306: :
'revreview-hist-basic';
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1307- } else {
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1308- $msg =
'revreview-hist-draft';
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1309- }
./FlaggedArticleView.php-1310- $form .= td width='50%'
align='center';
It seems what you're suggesting is the following:
Step 1. Simply leave revreview-hist-basic as checked revision (or even go
back to sighted revision)
Step 2. Create a new revreview-hist-accepted, setting it to accepted
revision
Step 3. ?
This is where I get a little fuzzy. What would you suggest at this
point (proposal A or B)?
Proposal A:
Step 3. Put in an if($wgYetAnotherGlobal) statement, using
revreview-hist-basic or revreview-hist-accepted based on the value of that
global
...or Proposal B:
Step 3. Replace revreview-hist-basic with revreview-hist-accepted
unconditionally.
Proposal A seems to make the code pretty complicated, and is a pretty big
change in aggregate. There are a lot of strings that need that treatment.
Proposal B doesn't buy us much, and the cost is much higher than simply
replacing the strings.
Rob
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: I have revised the graphic based on input from Andrew Gray and others. http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection3.png That version's a lot better and clearer, for the record, I can actually follow it now. :-) -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On 23 May 2010 00:18, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote: It seems what you're suggesting is the following: Step 1. Simply leave revreview-hist-basic as checked revision (or even go back to sighted revision) Step 2. Create a new revreview-hist-accepted, setting it to accepted revision Step 3. ? No, that's not the suggestion at all. As I understand it, your new version doesn't use the phrase checked revision at all, so there is no need to have a message saying it. The suggestion is that if accepted revision is used to mean two slightly different things (so might be translated in two different ways) in different places, there should be two messages both set to accepted revision with each message used for a particular meaning of the phrase. I can't think of an example and I'm not sure there are any for this particular feature, but it is a good general principle to keep in mind with any MediaWiki interface work. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 23 May 2010 00:18, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote: It seems what you're suggesting is the following: Step 1. Simply leave revreview-hist-basic as checked revision (or even go back to sighted revision) Step 2. Create a new revreview-hist-accepted, setting it to accepted revision Step 3. ? No, that's not the suggestion at all. As I understand it, your new version doesn't use the phrase checked revision at all, so there is no need to have a message saying it. The suggestion is that if accepted revision is used to mean two slightly different things (so might be translated in two different ways) in different places, there should be two messages both set to accepted revision with each message used for a particular meaning of the phrase. I can't think of an example and I'm not sure there are any for this particular feature, but it is a good general principle to keep in mind with any MediaWiki interface work. The problem as I understand it is this. Other wikis (e.g. German, Polish) are using FlaggedRevs as originally designed, with many different flags corresponding to sighted, quality, accuracy and so on. The proposed implementation on English Wikipedia is binary: either an article is accepted or its not. Many strings in the English version were changed to correspond to this usage. Enter bug 23615: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23615 Quoting the issue: About one and a half years ago, when we enabled on pl.wiki FlaggedRevs there was one main idea - we want fight vandalism, but do not exercise editorial control. Moreover, Polish community by introducing FlaggedRevs was convinced for this tool because of the *neutral* vocabulary. There existed keywords like sighted, review, mark... Now you introduce new keyword like checked, approve. I am afraid that this is a very bad idea because many people will think that Wikipedia is controlled by certain people. I would like to call on you to once again reconsider the changes in the interface. I suppose in this case, there might be a simpler debate about which is a better word: sighted, checked or accepted, since I think we actually have the same goal here (we don't want to convey anything other than someone other than an anonymous user gave this a once-over and thought it was ok to display). That aside, there are other instances where configuration differences actually result in concept differences in the strings (see flaggedrevs-desc for an example). Maybe those instances aren't as common as I'd feared, but I'm still trying to understand what the proposed solution is when we find those cases. Rob ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On 23 May 2010 01:17, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote: The problem as I understand it is this. Other wikis (e.g. German, Polish) are using FlaggedRevs as originally designed, with many different flags corresponding to sighted, quality, accuracy and so on. The proposed implementation on English Wikipedia is binary: either an article is accepted or its not. Many strings in the English version were changed to correspond to this usage. As I understand it, the software has three dimensions (accuracy, depth and style) each with five levels. The fact that the enwiki implementation only uses one of those dimensions and only two of the levels shouldn't really change anything - the other 13 messages are just unused. In hindsight, the number of dimensions and number of levels shouldn't have been hard-coded at all. There just have just been a two dimensional array with the size and contents entirely customisable (either through the message system or a special configuration page). Unfortunately, it is too late for that kind of major change, so we'll just have to ignore the rest of the messages. That shouldn't have any impact on other projects, other than them not being able to rely on English as a default. The message system in this case isn't just being used to translate the interface, it is being used to customise it as well, so defaults are pretty useless anyway. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote: I suppose in this case, there might be a simpler debate about which is a better word: sighted, checked or accepted, since I think we actually have the same goal here (we don't want to convey anything other than someone other than an anonymous user gave this a once-over and thought it was ok to display). Accepted might imply that revisions without that flag are not accepted. This isn't actually the case. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Updating strings for FlaggedRevs for the Flagged Protection/Pending Revisions/Double Check launch
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote: I suppose in this case, there might be a simpler debate about which is a better word: sighted, checked or accepted, since I think we actually have the same goal here (we don't want to convey anything other than someone other than an anonymous user gave this a once-over and thought it was ok to display). Accepted might imply that revisions without that flag are not accepted. This isn't actually the case. Hi Gregory, Any debate about the actual terminology we deploy should occur here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology Thanks Rob Rob ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
