User talk:Apple Bottom/TODO/Life Lexicon

From LifeWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"none of the below links should be read"... well, I hope someone reads them! And while I'm being pointlessly annoying and have my Spelling Hat on, I'd like to mention that I've noticed you have a consistently non-standard spelling of the word "explicitly".

Thanks for the Ongoing Life Lexicon Typos posting. If you're up for it, you could document any improvements you make to Lexicon entries, as you're moving them into the LifeWiki -- even just additional links, etc. -- if you think they could usefully be copied back to the Lexicon. I'm basically doing the same thing, adding a few extra links here and there, or even an example pattern on occasion. But I can do that directly in the source text file.

Speaking of which, might you be interested in having write access to that Lexicon text file? It's hosted on Google Drive, and currently shared only with David Bell. There's a nice utility called Drive Notepad that makes it pretty easy to jump in and fix stuff like "by by", if I just give you access. Email b3s23life@gmail.com if you want to become a member of this highly select group...

On following the link to Herschel conduit yesterday, I noticed that non-red links may still need a lot of work. What would be a good way of marking Lexicon terms as "reviewed, OK" and not just "there's something there"? Dvgrn (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Typos and spelling
Ack, that should've read "red", of course. Thanks for the pointer! (And please do feel free to fix typos like that, even within my user (sub)pages.)
Re: "explicitly" vs. "explicitely", I never actually realized -- at least I'm consistent about it. (I do apologize, BTW; I'm not a native English speaker.)
Tracking changes to feed back into the Lexicon
Yes, documenting changes/improvements made to Lexicon entries so they could be merged back into the Lexicon proper would be a good idea. Perhaps it would be good to break the Lexicon-to-LifeWiki copying into (at least) three steps:
  1. Copying the existing Lexicon entry to the LifeWiki, verbatim (but with links converted);
  2. Recording, in an on-wiki table, the entry's name, the revision of the LifeWiki entry that corresponds to the Lexicon entry, and the Lexicon version it's based on; and
  3. Only then making further changes to the LifeWiki entry.
This would be more useful than the current list that merely indicates whether an entry is present on the wiki or not.
For step 1, a script could perhaps be employed as well, which would ensure consistency as well as ease the work-load involved in the initial copying of entries. (Of course, said script would have to be written in turn, and things like inline patterns would complicate matters. In fact I've mostly (although not exclusively) been going for the low-hanging fruit so far, things like glossary entries without inline patterns. But that's a different story.)
For step 2, the information recorded would look something like this:
Entry Revision corresponding to Life Lexicon Life Lexicon version
2c/3 revision 43604 v28
The above three-step scheme's not ideal, though, insofar as that there's no (easy, or easily-automated) way of figuring out which articles have in fact been "advanced" beyond the revision that would be recorded in the table in step 2. Nice as it would be to have some kind of dashboard that informs you that "7 articles currently have unreviewed changes that could potentially be merged into the Lexicon", I'm not sure how one would implement such a thing.
Perhaps it would be better to instead employ MediaWiki's revision-tagging system, described at Manual:Tags and Help:Tags over on mediawiki.org. Unfortunately our MediaWiki version's too old to support admin-defined tags, but if we upgraded to a more recent version (which would also have the added advantage of being maintained and receiving security/reliability updates) I imagine we could create such tags as "lexicon-v28".
This would, if nothing else, obviate the need for the above Table-O'-Revisions. It would not automatically give us a nice dashboard presenting a list of articles "ahead" of their Lexicon counterparts. I think -- I've never actually used tagged revisions.
All of this is just "off the top of my head", BTW, not intended as a specific proposal as much as as some initial brainstorming, ideas that might or might not be judged useful.
Write access to the Lexicon text file
Oh, I'd be honored to get access to the text file, so I could fix typos and the like without having to get you involved! I'll fire off an email right away. I'll restrict myself to such things as fixing typos and grammar, and maybe adding the occasional link, leaving the actual editing to the experts. If I have suggestions that go beyond those simple things, I'll post them on the forums instead, as usual.
Marking Lexicon terms as "reviewed, OK"
This, too, could probably be done with tagged revisions, but perhaps a manual solution would be more practical here. How about I add a new section to the list? All entries would currently reside in "Need review", then, and each blue link could be moved to "Reviewed, OK" or "Reviewed, needs work" as appropriate.
Does that sound sensible? Apple Bottom (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
That seems workable, thanks. -- Except I don't want to volunteer for the annoying task of moving all the blue links that were red until recently, into the "Reviewed; OK" section... at least until I know for sure that you're not already working on it! Dvgrn (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not working on anything yet, but I'll be happy to take a break from importing new Lexicon entries and going over the already-blue links, moving them to "Reviewed; OK" or "Reviewed; needs work", as appropriate. (I won't actually rework them yet, that's another task for later; best to first identify what needs to be done.) Other than that I'd propose that when either of us imports a new article, we move that link to the "Reviewed; OK" section right away.
Speaking of which, just so we're on the same page here-- "Reviewed; OK" should just mean that the content is in line with the current Lexicon contents, right? I.e., it's either a straightforward conversion of the corresponding Lexicon entry, or a superset thereof; if there's discrepancies, or if the Wiki entry's state with regard to the Lexicon cannot be ascertained, it should be flagged as "needs work" so we can take a closer look later on.
Also, "Reviewed" does not indicate peer review of any sort here; that's handled by the ongoing wiki editing process, especially by keeping an eye on Special:RecentChanges. Apple Bottom (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)