Wikivoyage talk:Tags
This is implemented... I guess I should move the page to the main help namespace. --(WT-en) Evan 15:01, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
- Sorry, I mean: partially implemented. The Special:Tag page doesn't yet exist. --(WT-en) Evan 15:02, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
Searching[edit]
Will it be eventually be possible to search for tags on the site? - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:49, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
- Yes. --(WT-en) Evan 14:46, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
- Any timeline in mind? The reason I ask is because it took me an hour to find Project:Geocoding so I tagged it with this {{tag|geo}} that way I could find it in the future, but I didn't realize that it, currently, is impossible to search for tags. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:49, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
Category vs Tag[edit]
swept in from the pub
What is the difference between a Category and a Tag. I have been trying to work this out and the more I read the more confusing it gets. I have just looked at the edit page for Template:Tag and find:
<rdf> <> dc:subject "{{{1}}}" . </rdf> <includeonly> [[Category:{{{1}}}]] </includeonly>
Does this mean that a Tag is a Category or what?.
Policy on Project:Categories indicates that categories are to be avoided, and the Talk page suggests controversy. No apparent consensus emerges.
Project:Tags gives the impression that Tags are OK and we can use them freely. The Talk page provides little useful information.
One of the reasons I ask is that Export pages offers a feature where it appears that you can quickly select a whole category or start by selecting a whole category and delete unwanted articles, which could be useful if there were useful categories available to select. Article status does not seem to be useful in this context.
This all comes from trying to work out how to get all the sub-articles of a given article together in case you want to print them out.
If anyone knows the answer to that problem, please let me know.
(WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- I've never heard of tags before. It looks like an old feature that Evan liked but never got off the ground. You can see it's not widely used, and in fact at this point I'd call it deprecated. My impression is that Evan and the other early editors had a lot of great ideas about how to organize content, but they required stuff that normal MediaWiki couldn't do. Things like docents and breadcrumbs were implemented using RDF, which is a great idea in theory (machine-readable content) but has caused numerous problems in the places where it interfaces with MediaWiki. Personally, I'd like to see us find a more built-in MediaWiki way to add stuff to the sidebars and breadcrumbs; we can keep RDF but I don't think we should be basing what the user sees on that RDF code. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- And just as a side note, do we know of anyone actually using the RDF we have on the site? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- As you say, the main use of RDF is the breadcrumb navigation trail (Foo : Bar : Baz City), which uses RDF internally to figure out the paths. I'm not aware of anybody using RDF outside the site, but then, IB doesn't seem to have any interest in making WT easier to reuse. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:47, 8 November 2009 (EST)
- And just as a side note, do we know of anyone actually using the RDF we have on the site? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- I've never heard of tags before. It looks like an old feature that Evan liked but never got off the ground. You can see it's not widely used, and in fact at this point I'd call it deprecated. My impression is that Evan and the other early editors had a lot of great ideas about how to organize content, but they required stuff that normal MediaWiki couldn't do. Things like docents and breadcrumbs were implemented using RDF, which is a great idea in theory (machine-readable content) but has caused numerous problems in the places where it interfaces with MediaWiki. Personally, I'd like to see us find a more built-in MediaWiki way to add stuff to the sidebars and breadcrumbs; we can keep RDF but I don't think we should be basing what the user sees on that RDF code. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)
VFD Discussion[edit]
- Delete. If Template:Tag is deleted then this page will also be obsolete. If consensus is to keep Template:Tag then this page should also be kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:01, 23 August 2010 (EDT)
Result: Kept. A disclaimerbox has been added indicating that the page describes obsolete functionality per LtPowers concerns. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:37, 11 September 2010 (EDT)
Tag:emoji[edit]
- Swept in from the pub
What does this mean? It's an edit tag, for example in this edit history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Special:Tags -- no longer used -- Japanese emoticon (smiley face)? - Matroc (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Someone's using emoticons that can't be seen?? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- The new Indian rupee or Indonesian rupiah symbols may also trigger this tag. —The preceding comment was added by 149.241.32.203 (talk • contribs)
- It was from the telephone character. Often the insertion of emoji characters is an indication of vandalism, thus the tag. Kaldari (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The new Indian rupee or Indonesian rupiah symbols may also trigger this tag. —The preceding comment was added by 149.241.32.203 (talk • contribs)
- Someone's using emoticons that can't be seen?? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do we tag mobile edits and visual edits?[edit]
- Swept in from the pub
Out of curiosity... Why do we tag edits made on mobile or via the visual editor? Is that just to generate statistics? It seems unnecessary for other users to see in the recent changes whether I'm home or out? JuliasTravels (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- As for mobile, I myself have noted making more typos on mobile devices Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I believe all WMF wikis tag mobile and visual editor edits, so I doubt there's anything we could do to remove them. I assume they're done to track how many people are editing via the various interfaces, and to look for errors common thereto. Powers (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mobile is becoming the dominant platform for using Wikimedia projects. If we are going to encourage more casual editors, then it is worth knowing that people are using these tools. Personally I have never edited from mobile, but perhaps we should all think of trying it more often. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why in the world would I want to edit Wikivoyage on a 3-inch screen when I have a 20-inch screen readily available, or a 17-inch screen as a backup for traveling? I'm glad the option's available for those who want it, but I don't understand the value in all of us contorting our work processes to fit the mobile platform. Powers (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think what Andrewssi is suggesting, is that it's worth being somewhat familiar with the editing environment many new users will be facing. I can imagine, for example, that many new users will not find the page history on mobile (the link for which is buried under only a part of the "this was last edited X hours ago by Y".) Useful for us patrollers then to keep that in mind when reverting, as we like to give explanations in edit summaries. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why in the world would I want to edit Wikivoyage on a 3-inch screen when I have a 20-inch screen readily available, or a 17-inch screen as a backup for traveling? I'm glad the option's available for those who want it, but I don't understand the value in all of us contorting our work processes to fit the mobile platform. Powers (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mobile is becoming the dominant platform for using Wikimedia projects. If we are going to encourage more casual editors, then it is worth knowing that people are using these tools. Personally I have never edited from mobile, but perhaps we should all think of trying it more often. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks JuliasTravels, that is what I meant. 20 inch screens are awesome for editing Wikivoyage, but travelers are more likely to carry an iPad in favor of a laptop these days. In my opinion, all improvements to the usability of WV should be 'mobile first'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do most of my listing additions on my small smartphone these days. Adding listings on-the-spot results in:
- Better description as I remember exactly what I liked,
- A more up-to-date Wikivoyage, as the listing made available immediately, rather than a few weeks later (or never since I am usually super-busy after coming back from vacation),
- When I don't find all needed details, I can ask the staff ,
- Better coordinates thanks to the GPS,
- Picture, that I might not think to take otherwise (upload via Commons app) Syced (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do most of my listing additions on my small smartphone these days. Adding listings on-the-spot results in:
- Power's explanation above is correct: The edits are tagged for the sake of the devs, and it cannot be changed locally. However, if you want to hide the notice, then CSS magic can be employed to do so.
- I don't know what the stats are for Wikivoyage, but approximately a third of all page views (overall) come from the mobile site. Editors are more likely to use the desktop site. Either site can be used on either type of device. If you want to see the difference, then compare https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page to the desktop version. The main page is strikingly different: No pictures, some additional content at the top, much missing content elsewhere. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)