Wikinews:Water cooler/technical

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Refresh

Archive, post


What would it take to import Wikipedia's in-line citation mechanism?[edit]

Our limiting reagent on Wikinews appears to be how fast an article can get through review. Providing in-line citation saying which source supports which facts (preferably with room to add a comment like "hit CTRL-f '[keyword]'") would make the job faster and easier for the reviewers. It would also make writing follow-up stories easier. Just today I was writing a story and wanted to include some of the same background facts from another one that I wrote a week and a half ago. I didn't remember which of the sources had provided the facts I wanted and had to click on several of them, using up part of my free NYTimes allotment for the month. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If the background facts you want to use are in a previously published Wikinews article, it doesn't matter what sources they came from. Cite the previously published Wikinews article, by listing it in a Related news section. Going back to the original sources instead would be more work for the writer and more work for the reviewer.

As for in-line citations, it can be very helpful to put an embedded html comment after a fact in the article saying which of the sources (or related news) the fact can be found in. That technique has been used to very good effect in William S. Saturn's On the campaign trail articles. --Pi zero (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Btw: if you cite a previous Wikinews article as Related news, you can then use the text from it verbatim (if that makes sense in context); there's no copyright issue, since Wikinews's license is, in fact, compatible with Wikinews's license. Which makes it even easier to use a previous Wikinews article as a source, compared to the difficulty of going back to external sources. --Pi zero (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Developer Wishlist Survey: propose your ideas[edit]

At the Wikimedia Developer Summit, we decided to organize a Developer Wishlist Survey, and here we go:

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_Wishlist

The Wikimedia technical community seeks input from developers for developers, to create a high-profile list of desired improvements. The scope of the survey includes the MediaWiki platform (core software, APIs, developer environment, enablers for extensions, gadgets, templates, bots, dumps), the Wikimedia server infrastructure, the contribution process, and documentation.

The best part: we want to have the results published by Wednesday, February 15. Yes, in a month, to have a higher chance to influence the Wikimedia Foundation annual plan FY 2017-18.

There's no time to lose. Propose your ideas before the end of January, either by pushing existing tasks in Phabricator or by creating new ones. You can find instructions on the wiki page. Questions and feedback are welcome especially on the related Talk page.

The voting phase is expected to start on February 6 (tentative). Watch this space (or even better, the wiki page) - SSethi_(WMF) January 21st, 2017 3:07 AM (UTC)

Developer Wishlist Survey: Vote for Proposals[edit]

Almost two weeks ago, the Technical Collaboration team invited proposals for the first edition of the Developer Wishlist survey!

We collected around 77 proposals that were marked as suitable for the developer wishlist and met the defined scope and criteria. These proposals fall into the following nine categories: Frontend, Backend, Code Contribution (Process, Guidelines), Extensions, Technical Debt, Developer Environment, Documentation, Tools (Phabricator, Gerrit) and Community Engagement.

Voting phase starts now and will run until February 14th, 23:59 UTC. Click here on a category and show support for the proposals you care for most. Use the 'Vote' and 'Endorse' buttons next to a proposal to do so.

What happens next?
Proposals that will gather most votes will be included in the final results which will be published on Wednesday, February 15th. These proposals will also be considered in the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual plan FY 2017-18 - SSethi_(WMF) (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Purge" button[edit]

I have an old preference saying "Add a "*" tab to the top of the page which lets you purge the cache of the page." The "*" (asterisk) tab, which supposedly reset the cache, either no longer works or is no longer there. Right now, I have clickable icons indicating to refresh pages, especially in Wikinews Main Page and Newsroom. A clock button enabled via user's preference is nice, but I've also often used "Purge" button for any page. I want to take this to the "proposal" subpage, but seems to me that it's a technical issue also. Change to "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache", shown in multiple sister projects? That way, the "Purge" button issue is fixed. --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Sorry, I'm not quite following. Are you saying that gadget doesn't work right so we should replace it with... something? --Pi zero (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. But I'll rephrase concisely: The "*" preference thing doesn't work because "*" is no longer there. The other sister projects replaced "*" with the "Purge" button. Replacement may be needed, i.e. "purge", but it can be accessible via preference and the "More" scroll, which has the "Rename". I'll rephrase further if you want. --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Unless I'm mistaken, the Gadget is still here: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Are you saying that you have this option checked and it is still not working? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Re-checked my "Preferences" page: the option is checkmark-ed, and the gadget is still not working. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can remove the defunct "*" tab option without replacement as there is the clock purge link already in the "Gadgets" tab of Preferences menu. Nevertheless, having a replacement would have been better, but I think I might be fine without a replacement for now. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)