Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-19/Technology report

Discuss this story

Web fonts

If you are looking for a detailed report / feedback on the Webfonts deployment, please read mail to India list that we had sent. We have moved forward after this and have already seen improvement with WMF (Mazeland and team) communicating more and I hope such a thing will not happen in future deployments. Srikanth (Logic) 04:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that we're finally at the point in WYSIWYG where the community is able to play with it in a sandbox. This is a good sign for Wikipedia's future, and will do more for editor retention than charging clumsily into India, Brazil, and U.S. colleges ever will. I wonder how much sooner we'd have the visual editor functional if even half of the time and money spent on those other failed efforts was spent on this? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMF takes flak ... ??? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make minor grammatical corrections yourself. Our copyeditors are human, they miss things from time to time. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a mistake, that's British usage. Just like "Liverpool are playing well this year" or "the Orchestra are often blamed for the current Ukulele revival which is sweeping the globe". Angr (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to clarify, I wrote "WMF take...", which was then corrected to "WMF takes..." by Tony. Per BBC guidelines, one is not "right" or "wrong", but they have different nuances. Here, I think you could defend both options. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WYSIWYG

WYSIWYG? - finally! Bulwersator (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Whole wikitext-template structures could also be phased out as part of the transition process." Unless I'm misreading that, that's major step in itself, with massive implications. Where can we learn more about, and discuss, this proposal? What about the metadata currently emitted by our templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the main complaint it with templates that emit HTML output that is unbalanced (i.e. templates which cannot 'stand alone'). This includes templates such as {{s-start}}, which presumably would be merged with {{s-end}} to create a single overarching template. I dare say the effect on microformats would be negligible. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

https

Only issue is that while it may be true about the retaining secure login there is an issue in that there is NOT a current security certificate and that is not going to be resolved at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep!

Newbies will no longer have problem with editing. Nice work done, WMF! Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]