Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Goals
Latest comment: 3 years ago by BoldLuis in topic Templates
 | Please ask questions about the goals on the main talkpage, Talk:Abstract Wikipedia, in order to keep things somewhat centralized. Thank you! |
- That page is already too long but I have boldly transcluded this page there.--GrounderUK (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Quiddity (WMF):Just thinking about "your" archiving process. Will it automatically subst the transclusions, when their days in the sun come to an end? Or will the archive pages be transcluding the current versions by oldid? Or does it all depend?--GrounderUK (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- @GrounderUK: I don't think the archive-bot will recognize the existence of the transclusions, assuming that it parses the raw wikitext and not the rendered page. So we'll have to think about how to handle the transcluded sections on the main talkpage, e.g. I/we might just decide to manually alter where the "noinclude/onlyinclude" tags are placed - but thank you again for setting that up, it's a great short-term solution. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Quiddity:Not expecting ping to work As expected, the bot just archived the instruction to transclude. I boldly subst:ed in those transclusions, so they are now permatext in the archive. It makes sense to me to leave the archived Urtext here. I/we/anyone can transclude this page back into the main talk page, but I've moved the noinclude down to exclude (by default) any text that has already appeared and since been archived. In the other now-archived transcluded pages, I'm making the same change as a minor edit. It makes sense to do them all at once because the infotext linking to the archive versions is the same in all cases (see below). As we'd discussed this here, I thought I'd make a note for anyone's future reference.--GrounderUK (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- @GrounderUK: The ping worked, but went to my volunteer-account instead of work-account! ;)
- Ah, the problem was that there was a single signed comment in there. The archive-bots usually work by simply scanning the wikitext-source of each ==section== looking for timestamps, and then they archive the section(s) with the oldest timestamp(s) - they can usually be fooled (thus making a section stay indefinitely) by forging a date that is far in the future, or leaving out timestamps entirely.
- I think the 3 sections that were archived can stay that way, although I will endeavour to get an answer for the question I now see in the "Non-Wikipedia Content" section.
- Thanks! Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Quiddity:Not expecting ping to work As expected, the bot just archived the instruction to transclude. I boldly subst:ed in those transclusions, so they are now permatext in the archive. It makes sense to me to leave the archived Urtext here. I/we/anyone can transclude this page back into the main talk page, but I've moved the noinclude down to exclude (by default) any text that has already appeared and since been archived. In the other now-archived transcluded pages, I'm making the same change as a minor edit. It makes sense to do them all at once because the infotext linking to the archive versions is the same in all cases (see below). As we'd discussed this here, I thought I'd make a note for anyone's future reference.--GrounderUK (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- @GrounderUK: I don't think the archive-bot will recognize the existence of the transclusions, assuming that it parses the raw wikitext and not the rendered page. So we'll have to think about how to handle the transcluded sections on the main talkpage, e.g. I/we might just decide to manually alter where the "noinclude/onlyinclude" tags are placed - but thank you again for setting that up, it's a great short-term solution. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
What follows was transcluded into Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia until it was archived and subst:ed.
Primary goals
edit"Allowing more people to read more content in their language"
Rather than "in their language", I think it should be "in the language they choose". Some people have more than one language. Some people may want to read content in a language that is not one of their own, either because they are learning that language, or because they are studying in that language, or for other reasons.--GrounderUK (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @GrounderUK: Good point, and I've tweaked it to your suggestion. That seems to keep it concise, whilst being a bit clearer. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Templates
editI want more info about templates proposed and what can we propose for the project (infoboxes ?). BoldLuis (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)