Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-20/Dispatches

Wikihistory
Another page history tool that wasn't mentioned in the article but is also very useful is de:Benutzer:APPER/WikiHistory, a downloadable (and closed source) program that runs under Windows. The documentation is entirely in German, which was a reason not include it here, but the program itself is in English and can be applied to pages on many different Wikipedias including the English one, and Commons. Apart from a "blame" function, it can color an article's text according to which editor contributed it, meaning one gets a direct overview of all text authored by a particular user. The German Wikipedia fork "Wikiweise" offers such a coloring function directly on their site (accessible by the "Einfärben" link next to each article, example). IIrc, this was based on an earlier version of APPER's code.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Signpost articles about tools

 * I'm concerned this is becoming too much. 3 whole articles of tools gives a very, very nagging feeling that we are getting seriously out of scope-especially considering it was originally one. Res Mar 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a software review should be a regular feature on the Signpost - a entire article devoted to one tool in each issue. An article devoted to policy discussions would be good too but I'm afraid I'm not volunteering to write either of these. filceolaire (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the wastebin of ideas =) Res Mar 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concept is terrific, implementation could be improved. I'd prefer:  Tool of the Week.  Tools are incredibly useful, and in many situations separate effective from ineffective editors.  At the least, they separate newcomers from old hands.  Try doing recent changes patrol without Twinkle (or Huggle), or checking diffs without pop-ups, or fixing syntax without Auto-Ed.  It's possible, but why would you want to?  Let's keep bringing attention to the important but undercovered ideas, just do it in a less haphazard fashion. Ocaasi 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "haphazard fashion"? The first two parts already represent the result of quite some effort to bring into a more systematic form what was initially, in the view of some commenters, a too arbitrary selection. This was done by grouping the tools into topics, and striving for some level of completeness regarding each topic (i.e. try to cover at least the important, widely used tools related to each topic). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, haphazard wasn't about it being messy or chaotic, just about the inherent randomness of tools. I appreciate the general effort as well as the specific intentions to group things better.  What I mean is that tools are such an important but niche item, that they might be best categorized individually or broken down by very specific themes (like anti-vandalism, citations, User Interface, templates, etc.).  It might be best for readers if only one tool, or two or three from a single category were presented each week.  Once you have more than that I think it takes on what I meant by haphazard, which is a bit of a hodge-podge quality, since you have a collection of new, technical things which are interesting but maybe overwhelming when grouped together.  Is that a better explanation? Ocaasi (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for specific themes, well that's what we tried here - the "citations" idea has already been realized in the first issue (as "References"). "User interface", on the other hand, seems very general.
 * I think that most tools don't warrant a separate article. And grouping should actually help to make things easier to read (example in this article: The reader only has to grasp once what a "blame" functionality is, in order to understand the description of several tools providing it). Of course there can always be debate about the relevance of a particular tool for Signpost readers, but I think it's good to strive for a certain completeness regarding each topic, in the sense that at least all widely used or highly recommendable tools regarding that "very specific theme" are covered.
 * You are welcome to comment on the (draft of the) next installment, which will likely be postponed until next week: Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-11/Dispatches.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be getting beyond the viewers at this point, so to clarify:
 * This was only (only!) intended to showcase tools useful to article writing. Please strive to understand that. Whatever else you want to do is separate. Res Mar 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is understood that your personal intentions may have been different in the beginning, but do I really need to remind you of the huge concerns and lengthy controversies that they generated? The scope and form were changed to bring it into a form acceptable for publishing. Even in this second part, several quality problems stemming from the initial text (such as a completely wrong name for one tool) had to be fixed before publication. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah calling a Banan-a a Banana is soooo wrong. >.> Res Mar 02:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)