Rowan Collins | 1 Jun 17:01 2005
Picon

Re: Re: Re: Intended changes to namespace management

On 01/06/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose it would be too much to hope that we could extend the {{}} syntax
> to images, wherein {{Image:Some-nice_picture.jpg}} embedded the image and
> [[Image:Some-nice_picture.jpg]] simply linked to the description page?

Well, it might well be too much to hope that all articles on
Wikipedia, and all old versions of those articles, could be either
converted to obey that rule or somehow activate a
"backwards-compatibility" mode.

Besides, while it makes sense that displaying an image is an
inclusion, this doesn't actually extend very well to, for instance,
sounds - unless we go the route of embedding plugins, sounds will
always be more like a fancy link than an "inclusion". (For an example
of what I think such a "fancy link" might look like, see my mockup at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia#Software_features )

--

-- 
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
James D. Forrester | 1 Jun 17:18 2005

Re: Re: Re: Intended changes to namespace management

On Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:01 PM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins <at> gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 01/06/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suppose it would be too much to hope that we could extend the {{}}
> > syntax to images, wherein {{Image:Some-nice_picture.jpg}} embedded the
> > image and [[Image:Some-nice_picture.jpg]] simply linked to the
> > description page? 
> 
> Well, it might well be too much to hope that all articles on
> Wikipedia, and all old versions of those articles, could be either
> converted to obey that rule or somehow activate a
> "backwards-compatibility" mode.
> 
> Besides, while it makes sense that displaying an image is an
> inclusion, this doesn't actually extend very well to, for instance,
> sounds - unless we go the route of embedding plugins, sounds will
> always be more like a fancy link than an "inclusion". (For an example
> of what I think such a "fancy link" might look like, see my mockup at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia#Software_features )

Hmm. If you link to a sound-file with {{Image:}} (or {{Sound:}} you'd want
to transclude it, even if the software won't let you. [[Sound:]] would then
be a link to the sound, and the overall manner of links would make more
sense.

Yours,
--

-- 
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

(Continue reading)

Rowan Collins | 1 Jun 17:30 2005
Picon

Re: Re: Re: Intended changes to namespace management

On 01/06/05, James D. Forrester <james <at> jdforrester.org> wrote:
> Hmm. If you link to a sound-file with {{Image:}} (or {{Sound:}} you'd want
> to transclude it, even if the software won't let you. [[Sound:]] would then
> be a link to the sound, and the overall manner of links would make more
> sense.

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here - are you saying that
"transcluding a sound" *is* the same as displaying a specially
formatted set of links/player, or that it isn't? Like I say, I can see
how "transcluding an image" could mean displaying it inline, but I'm
not sure that "transcluding a sound" is really a meaningful concept.
At the moment, you can transclude the *description page*, but I don't
think anyone would really miss that ability.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the argument for having a different
syntax for "display inline" than for "link to", I'm just not 100%
convinced that this is logically the same as "transclude from".

--

-- 
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
James D. Forrester | 1 Jun 17:56 2005

Re: Re: Re: Intended changes to namespace management

On Wednesday, June 01, 2005, at 16:30, Rowan Collins
<rowan.collins <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/06/05, James D. Forrester <james <at> jdforrester.org> wrote:
> > Hmm. If you link to a sound-file with {{Image:}} (or {{Sound:}} you'd
> > want to transclude it, even if the software won't let you. [[Sound:]]
> > would then be a link to the sound, and the overall manner of links
> > would make more sense.
> 
> Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here - are you saying that
> "transcluding a sound" *is* the same as displaying a specially
> formatted set of links/player, or that it isn't? Like I say, I can see
> how "transcluding an image" could mean displaying it inline, but I'm
> not sure that "transcluding a sound" is really a meaningful concept.
> At the moment, you can transclude the *description page*, but I don't
> think anyone would really miss that ability.

In short: I'm agreeing with you. :-)

We could do without {{Image:Foo}} importing the description content of media
file Foo, and instead use it as a transclusion mechanism for the image. Then
[[Image:Foo]] would be a link to the image, the syntax would suddenly make a
lot more sense, and there would be happy children frollicking in the fields
and all that.

I also agreed with you that having {{Sound:Foo}} would only make sense if
you could in some way transclude the audio file Foo; for that to be useful
one would need, as you say, some form of special format or inline player.
Which would be fun (but obviously isn't a major feature request yet :-)).

(Continue reading)


Gmane