On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> By the way, I'm assuming that some edits will be of the sort "I would
> normally remove the material and start a talk page discussion". In
> that case, is the right thing to do to approve the edit and then
> remove the material and start a talk
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> We have a rough proxy for use of search, I believe, by seeing the
> traffic to special:search. We could try seeing if this exhibits any
> noticeable difference after the chance.
We're limited here by the fact that, for privacy and other reas
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> So, we would like to make a change to the name of the "Flagged Protections"
> feature prior to deploying it to en.wikipedia.org. Under the hood, we would
> still be using the "FlaggedRevs" extension (no change there), but the name
> that we
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:28 AM, AGK wrote:
> On 20 May 2010 16:23, Carcharoth wrote:
>> Yeah, but are they using the search box or using Google?
>
> A moot question. There is no excuse for having Wikipedia make do with
> a search box that is at best odd—and at worst an obstruction to our
> read
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM, quiddity wrote:
> p.s. on-wiki feedback about search seems to be coagulating at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_experience_feedback/search_box
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/May_2010_skin_change
Thanks, though I'm not
I agree. Cross out the last line.
Emily
On May 21, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> Love the rest, but the "We'll be watching it carefully" is a little
> creepy.
>
> ~A
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 22:57, FT2 wrote:
>> We don't and can't right now but we should probably say somethi
Love the rest, but the "We'll be watching it carefully" is a little creepy.
~A
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 22:57, FT2 wrote:
> We don't and can't right now but we should probably say something on these
> lines just because people will wonder how long to expect and saying
> something is better than
We don't and can't right now but we should probably say something on these
lines just because people will wonder how long to expect and saying
something is better than nothing. We can always modify the wording with
experience. For a starting point we could word it:
*"The average delay is not yet k
Probably not, unless we take an educated guess from the German
Wikipedia. I get the impression that we're doing things significantly
different from them, so yeah. I don't think anyone can.
Emily
On May 21, 2010, at 9:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 22 May 2010 02:18, FT2 wrote:
>> *+ **"..
On 22 May 2010 02:18, FT2 wrote:
> *+ **"...The average delay is expected to be around minutes, and we'll
> be watching this carefully."*
Do we actually have an expectation? We have aspirations, certainly (I
think N=5 is bit on the high side for the median, which is probably
the best average to
> - "Double Check" - this was a late entrant, but has the distinct
> advantage of clearly communicating what we envision this feature
> will be used for (i.e. enforcing a double check from a very broad
> community).
I like this one. With this, there would be "double checked" edits,
that
*+ **"...The average delay is expected to be around minutes, and we'll
be watching this carefully."*
FT2
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM, FT2 wrote:
> "Pending edits" might describe the edits, but not the "regime" or tool.
>
> "Delayed editing" is one possible option for the tool. As in, "Del
"Pending edits" might describe the edits, but not the "regime" or tool.
"Delayed editing" is one possible option for the tool. As in, "Delayed
editing has been applied to this article". Doesn't imply any kind of
checking or approval, nor censorship or the like, just that edits will be
delayed. I t
On 22 May 2010 00:36, geni wrote:
> Not so. The search box in classic is on the top left (as well as the
> second one at the the end of the page). As far as I'm aware this
> requies no changes from monobook.
I may have been being a little sarcastic :P. Sorry if I confused you.
AGK
_
On 22 May 2010 00:28, AGK wrote:
> On 20 May 2010 16:23, Carcharoth wrote:
>> Yeah, but are they using the search box or using Google?
>
> A moot question. There is no excuse for having Wikipedia make do with
> a search box that is at best odd—and at worst an obstruction to our
> reader's searche
On 20 May 2010 16:23, Carcharoth wrote:
> Yeah, but are they using the search box or using Google?
A moot question. There is no excuse for having Wikipedia make do with
a search box that is at best odd—and at worst an obstruction to our
reader's searches. What bothers me is that the search functi
Naoko Komura wrote:
> Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 04:15, Naoko Komura wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We have updated the new search interface to address the issues above and
>>> it is currently staged on the the prototype [1]. This update addresses
>>> the reported issues such
On 21 May 2010 22:38, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> It turns out that filters out quite a few names (including "Flagged
> Protection" among other things). Here's the alternatives that made the cut:
>
> - "Pending Revisions" - this name is very consistent with what everyone
> will see in many parts of
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:34 PM, FT2 wrote:
> Might help to sum up what exactly it does or how it's used (2-4 bullet
> points) so that people trying to pick a name to match its features but
> haven't followed the lengthy debate, are up to date on it.
>
That's fair. Here's the gist of it:
* An
Might help to sum up what exactly it does or how it's used (2-4 bullet
points) so that people trying to pick a name to match its features but
haven't followed the lengthy debate, are up to date on it.
FT2
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As William all
Hi everyone,
As William alluded to, a bunch of us have been studying the user interface
for Flagged Protections and figuring out how to make it more intuitive.
In trying to solve the user interface problems as well as generally figuring
out how we're going to talk about this feature to the world
On May 21, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 21/05/2010, Philip Sandifer wrote:
>> Yeah, but the last guy I saw adding them was...
>>
>> Umm...
>>
>> Right, there's the issue.
>
> What issue? We don't want people removing valid references. In many
> cases references are the most impo
On 21/05/2010, Philip Sandifer wrote:
> Yeah, but the last guy I saw adding them was...
>
> Umm...
>
> Right, there's the issue.
What issue? We don't want people removing valid references. In many
cases references are the most important bits of the whole article.
Note that sock puppet abuse is c
On May 21, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 21/05/2010, Philip Sandifer wrote:
>> Permission, however, does not anywhere close to adequately translate into
>> execution. We do not exclude non-English sources on a policy level, but on a
>> social level, we heavily do.
>
> Well, the las
On 21/05/2010, Philip Sandifer wrote:
> Permission, however, does not anywhere close to adequately translate into
> execution. We do not exclude non-English sources on a policy level, but on a
> social level, we heavily do.
Well, the last guy I saw removing non English refs ended up getting
perma
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
...
> To get "Search" instead of "Go", do what Magnus Manske suggested a few days
> ago:
>
> "just type your search query, then hit the "cursor up" key to select
> the last point in the dropdown box, which is the good ol' search
> function. Hit e
On May 21, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> On 21 May 2010 04:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> While this is not a reply specifically to what Greg raises, it
>> is a fact that we aren't just giving the cold shoulder to
>> "silent knowledge", but also stuff written down in a languag
On 20 May 2010 19:19, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> If we're in a proposal mood: Why not make it go, but if it go-es
> rather than takes you to special search put a small box of other
> search results above the article. (along with your advanced button,
> and an obvious close X to get rid of it if
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 06:20, Naoko Komura wrote:
> Just a quick update:
>
> Updated search interface was rolled-out to English Wikipedia earlier
> today. Thank you all for your quick feedback.
Thanks for fixing the full-text search.
There's a significant change from Monobook in suggestions beh
29 matches
Mail list logo
