User talk:Cronolio

Wiki maintenance
 For the job well done maintaining multiple articles you receive this cool red trophy and a high five from Larry the cow! Thanks for all your hard work in translating to Russian as well!  --Maffblaster (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Bypassing a redirect
What was your thinking in this edit? Was it was related to translation? Because I don't think there is any good reason to replace a simple link to a redirect page by a more complicated link to a section within an article. - dcljr (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Redirect is work only for english articles and always when it possible i write link to translated version of article. Like >>  . If you know how to have previous selected language on next page, let me known. --Cronolio (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it not be preferable to create "translated" redirects in such cases, e.g., euse/ru containing ? That way the translations could benefit from redirects the same way the English versions do. Is there a technical reason this would not work? BTW, in this edit you still have a link to the English euse. - dcljr (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please explain for me. Why it should have redirect in the first place ? This is some SEO trick ? With some "free and clear" reasons i like to see end point in url. --Cronolio (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Two main reasons: There may be other reasons I haven't thought of. - dcljr (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Convenience, since it's much easier to link to euse (or euse/ru, etc.) when it is first mentioned in an article rather than having to remember (or search and find out) that it's covered in the Gentoolkit (Gentoolkit/ru, etc.) article.
 * 2) At some point in the future, we may want to have a standalone article for, in which case none of the extisting euse links would have to be changed.


 * For 1st reason: in rendered version the name is  (as it see reader) because i am wrote euse.
 * Another no good reason: no good idea to write in  because it is reserved for translation. So what happening if in the future we will have euse article (for translation too) and someone forget about this euse/ru redirect?
 * Ok i just done what you asking me for. But by me this no liked (imho). Sorry if... --Cronolio (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

What I meant in #1 was: as a wiki editor, it is much easier to add links to euse where they are needed rather than having to remember to use euse. Obviously to readers the links look the same. (But that's my point: It's easier for editors and makes no difference to readers.) As for #2, if euse ever gets created as an article needing translation, we would simply delete any existing euse/xx redirects and use the translation extension in the normal way. Are you saying that the existence of redirects called euse and euse/ru will cause problems (now) for translators? How? (I am not a translator, so I don't know much about it.) Isn't the change you made here exactly how you would translate that part of the "Fontconfig" article if euse was a regular article and not a redirect? Why should it be different because it's a redirect? I still don't understand why you don't like using a redirect in this way… - dcljr (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So if i will edit  article and fix link   with   (that will work without redirect) i do all the work of other translators, and for myself too. It's much easier way. --Cronolio (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I done this edit and create this page with redirect because you ask me for this. With reason as some search entry point (as i understand).
 * I think the redirect is a tool for the lazy editors &#128512; My total reasons here:
 * Infrastructure side: i think i save some number of HTTP request/answer for gentoo servers and for reader www-client also. For redirect is work required extra HTTP request/answer.
 * "Cat in box" and end point of url: if i good reader and i see  in url i like to see   article. If not, it seems to me that I was deceived &#128542; "Cat in box" mean the reader never knows what awaits him at the end of. Search for "Schrödinger's cat" on wikipedia also &#128521;
 * Translation side and probably main for me: if translator like I am care about national relinking of articles, which under translation. Like link from  to  . This translators does the translation for   like  . With redirect from   to   article by your "redirect way" it is looks like each translator should create a ton   pages with redirect to   (sorry for my english. try to understand it)


 * Looks like mediawiki do it via Special:MyLanguage. Example . There is also seen a completely different approach to marking for translation. --Cronolio (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's consider each of these points: As for the feature, I know about that, but I don't think I've seen it used in articles (in the main namespace) around here very much. I'd have to think about that.... - dcljr (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) This, I believe, is a complete non-issue. The additional server load of redirects is surely negligible.
 * 2) Whether your link is to euse or euse, the reader still sees euse and ends up at euse. There is absolutely no difference to readers.
 * 3) Each translator would create a single moo/xx redirect for the language they are translating into. (So you just "do the work of" yourself.) This would have to be understood by translators, of course. So I guess my question now is: in the current situation, if a translator comes across a link to moo in the original article, how do they know whether to link to moo/xx or just keep it moo (in the case where  has not been translated to language  yet)? Does the translate extension tell them?


 * Sometime it slowly work on my desktop. What happening on mobile device i don't know.
 * I mean if reader move the cursor at url and see what in url.
 * All in manual mode my friend. I check each link in article.
 * You can ask maffblaster for translation privileges. --Cronolio (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind if I asked other users about this and directed them to this talk page? I'd like to get some other opinions on this... - dcljr (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wiki is opened for all world. My page too. --Cronolio (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done it. - dcljr (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Useless edits
Please note that edits like this are completely useless, since they don't change the rendered HTML of the page at all ("  " is already rendered as " " by the MediaWiki software). Because they also trigger similar useless edits on translated pages (FuzzyBot can't tell that an edit is useless, unlike humans), such edits should really be avoided. - dcljr (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)