User talk:Vapmachado
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
[edit] Scrolling TOC
Try using the new Template:TOC-scrolling, {{TOC-scrolling|height=200|width=200}} Studerby 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Template was deleted due to discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 14#Template:TOC-scrolling. You may want to ask users who were involved in this discussion for further information, I am not familiar with this case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- PS. I can always paste here the code of the template, if you want to use it yourself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The content of the template are at User:Vapmachado/TOC-scrolling; note you can use {{User:Vapmachado/TOC-scrolling}} as template.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Category for assignments
A very good point. So far we have Category:Wikipedia articles as assignments (auto-added via {{EducationalAssignment}}) and Category:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Either we could use this category (for lack of something better), or we could create our own. I am not sure what the best name should be - perhaps you could ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classroom coordination (or just be bold and create it if you have an idea; we should certainly announce it there in that case). The category should likely be a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia related projects. Good ideas - looking forward to seeing how your assignment develops! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia book
It doesn't sound like the book is likely to be that useful, but if you'd like a copy, I'll send you one at no cost. I make this offer because I'd be interested in any feedback on what parts of the book are particularly difficult to understand - in fact, for such parts, I'd be happy to provide a revised, simplified version of the text (this could help me when making changes for the next edition.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding reviewing the book (and thank you for the compliments), two thoughts. First, it's not necessary; I apologize if I gave that impression. What I'm after is any feedback from those actually using the book - like "the explanation of X on page 1234 was really confusing") or "there was a typo in the second section on page 456; it should have said "ABC" but it said "XYZ". In short, if you'd just let whoever is using the book know that they can have an impact on the second edition (as well as on-line errata), and pass that back to me, that's more than enough.
- If you really want to do a review, I do suggest using a subpage of your own, as discussed on page 57. I don't mind your creating a subpage in my user space, but it's quite possible that another editor would notice this and take some kind of corrective (to him/her) action - it's very, very uncommon for one editor to create a new page in another editor's userspace.
- The translation/adaption into Portuguese is very interesting. I'd personally be willing to waive any royalties and other rights, but you'd need to get something similar from the publisher - O'Reilly Media - if you wanted to do a direct translation as a starting point. In fact, my strong recommendation would be to put the book up as a set of Wikipedia pages, in projectspace , and let people simply print out the sections they wanted (there are 100+ "top-level" sections, each 4 to 5 pages, in the book). Then the only expense is the time for translating (and adapting) and taking replacement screenshots. (A digital text version of the book is available online, via Safari books online; I think a person can sign up for a free 30-day trial period [just be sure to cancel before the end of that period, so that a credit card isn't charged), so copying the text and perhaps running it through a machine translator would be a start.) You'd still need someone familiar with Portuguese Wikipedia policies and guidelines and community norms, as you point out, but I'm pretty confident in saying that it's a lot easier to take someone else's book and revise it, section by section, than to do this fresh. (The nice thing about section-by-section translations is that the work would pay off immmediately - think of it as writing a series of tutorials, each immediately usable.)
- And finally, what might help with the translation/adaption into Portuguese could be a Portuguese equivalent of the English Wikipedia's editor's index. Nothing anywhere near as extensive is needed; perhaps the German Wikipedia index is a better model. That has value in its own right, of course. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TOC-scrolling
At this point, so far past the deletion debate, (It was ~8 months ago), the only place to comment on such a deletion would be WP:DRV, and even then only if you wished to challenge or overturn the deletion. As for merely expressing comments, I am afraid I am not aware of a venue to do so. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editors index to Wikipedia - Portugese
There are two closely related issues here - interwiki links, and the index for pt.wikipedia.org. My first thought was that you might post a request for help on the use talk pages of a few editors who are fluent in Portuguese. But there seem to be a lot of these - more than 500, based on those who have put the {{user pt}} template on the user page. So the challenge is to find out who is an active editor and who is not, by looking at user contributions to see the date of the last edits. You could do that manually, or perhaps ask for help at WP:BOTREQ.
Do keep in mind that the English Wikipedia, by nature of its size, almost certainly has far more policies and guidelines than any other language Wikipedia. And it's in the nature of Americans, at least, to write essays (individualist) and create tools (though many Wikipedia tools have been written by German-language editors). Plus the help pages at Meta are in English, making it easy to copy them to the English Wikipedia. In short, I'd be surprised if the Portuguese index, if complete, had more than perhaps 10 percent of the entries in the English index. And in any case, if the Portuguese index had the three or four or five hundred most useful entries, the missing ones don't matter. Plus, if you can get it to be useful (say, more than 200 links), then the community is likely to step in and improve and maintain it.
I mention the interwiki links separately, because the index could be expanded without adding interwiki links to pages (and vice versa, of course). The advantage of adding such links is that it becomes easier to see "what other Wikipedias are doing", and I think that will - perhaps not now, but in a few years - become more and more helpful.
And yes, I'd be willing to make the request to editors here on the English Wikipedia, though I think that the request is actually more impressive coming from you - a university professor in Portugal - than from me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
