Categories should not redirect?: rm closed discussion
← Older revision
Revision as of 16:35, 27 July 2012
(2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 26:
Line 26:
:::In general, a tree-like structure is the "ideal goal" because it looks simpler and tidier than having "converging branches", thus helping organizing the articles in a more natural way and also making maintenance easier. However it may be hard to put into practice indeed, so this discussion is probably going to last long...
:::In general, a tree-like structure is the "ideal goal" because it looks simpler and tidier than having "converging branches", thus helping organizing the articles in a more natural way and also making maintenance easier. However it may be hard to put into practice indeed, so this discussion is probably going to last long...
:::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:59, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 12:59, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
−
−
==<s>i18n</s>==
−
This is a bit off-topic, so move this to its own section if appropriate, please.
−
−
Am I the only one that finds the i18n sections to almost be more trouble than they are worth? The '''vast''' majority of the i18n pages I have seen are either months out of date, are missing a ''lot'' of formatting (such as Filename, Codeline, etc.), have half of the page in English and the other half in the correct i18n language, and other such nonsense. Would it make more sense to get rid of the i18n sections entirely and to dedicate all of our effort on making sure that the articles we have in English are written in the most "translator friendly" manner possible (e.g. no contractions, no slang, etc.)? I am not familiar with how well free services like Google Translate work when going from English to [insert non-English language here], but it might be worth looking into. It would probably make sense to keep the official installation guides written directly in the non-English languages, but it is simply not feasible to ''properly'' maintain i18n pages for every page on the wiki. -- [[User:Jstjohn|Jstjohn]] 01:56, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
−
:Also, with [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/google-chrome-continues-its-rapid-rise-ie-and-firefox-fall/3604 the rise of Google Chrome] which basically has Google Translate built into the browser, I would guess that doing this would not be as big of an inconvenience to our non-English users as it would have been a couple years ago. In fact, I would bet that using Google Translate via Chrome would be ''more'' convenient for our non-English users than having to deal with significantly outdated instructions (and the troubleshooting/damage control that will almost certainly occur from way-out-of-date guides). -- [[User:Jstjohn|Jstjohn]] 02:09, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
−
::The idea was that other languages move to their own wikis, like German, French and Polish did.
−
::Another issue: there's currently no way to search within one language only, so you get 5 useful links in twenty. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 03:32, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
−
:::As Karol says, in theory each language should have its separate wiki. But in practice it's not how it works, and for sure we cannot just "get rid" of all the non-English articles, we'd throw away the efforts that many users have done over the years, trying to make the Arch documentation available also to those who can't read English.
−
:::Google Translate, although managing to achieve quite impressive results, cannot really handle intricate sentences, or slang, idioms, or technical terms, and anyway it needs correctly-formed English sentences to work well, which is not always the case.
−
:::About the search issue, the "language" information of an article is stored only in a standard substring of the title (the _(Language) suffix), AFAIK there's no "Language" field in the database, so there's probably no built-in function to filter a search by language. Asking Arch's web developers to implement one by themselves would <u>rightly</u> result in a "we don't want to maintain such a change, go ask upstream, closed" or something like that.
−
:::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 15:53, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
−
::::There have been a number of discussions about this over the years: [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=27039 2006], [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=37513 2007], [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=675478 2009], and [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=95360 2010]. In short, there are a number of potential solutions; none are perfect. Currently, the interwiki implementation is considered "best" because it provides non-English users with a fully-localized experience and isolates each language. Other "good" solutions include the creation of language-specific [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Namespaces namespaces] or migration to a different wiki which provides "better" internationalization options -- but require more effort to implement. In brief: the i18n bar will eventually disappear. -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 17:36, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
−
:::::Uh right, I didn't think of the namespace solution, it may be the most practical to implement with a relatively little effort!
−
:::::Another disadvantage of the i18n template is that statistics like [[Special:LonelyPages]] and [[Special:DeadendPages]] don't work anymore as expected.
−
:::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 17:50, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
−
::::::This discussion is too generic, closing. Please see [[Help talk:i18n]] for more specific discussions. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
==Style vs. Usability ==
==Style vs. Usability ==
Line 356:
Line 339:
::> ..merging editing and style guidelines consistently everywhere, and split them in several articles based on the various topics being dealt with.
::> ..merging editing and style guidelines consistently everywhere, and split them in several articles based on the various topics being dealt with.
::Sounds good. Note, that moving part of current content to templates can reduce overall size of all involved articles and possibly simplify further work. --[[User:AlexanderR|AlexanderR]] ([[User talk:AlexanderR|talk]])
::Sounds good. Note, that moving part of current content to templates can reduce overall size of all involved articles and possibly simplify further work. --[[User:AlexanderR|AlexanderR]] ([[User talk:AlexanderR|talk]])
−
−
===<s>Fix link</s>===
−
I just add a templates list on [[Help:Template]]. The template sub section should link to [[Help:Template]] not [[Template:Template]]. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 03:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
−
:Fixed, thanks. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 10:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
== Is it suggested to use Template:AUR for links? ==
== Is it suggested to use Template:AUR for links? ==
Line 439:
Line 418:
:::::::::This discussion is open, however, more ideas are welcome.
:::::::::This discussion is open, however, more ideas are welcome.
:::::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 11:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 11:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
−
−
== <s> Categories should not redirect? </s> ==
−
There is a [[:Category:Domain Name System]] category, it is more well known as DNS. So there should be a redirect of DNS-->[[:Category:Domain Name System]]. Will this conflict to the rule '''Categories should not redirect'''? -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 08:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
−
:If I understand correctly, you want to create [[DNS]], not [[:Category:DNS]], right? In that case, [[DNS]] is not a category, so the rule "categories should not redirect" doesn't apply. Short answer: no, it won't conflict :) -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 09:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
−
:: Now I fully understand it. Category should not be source of redirect but can be the target. Thanks. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 07:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)