<Ref> tags s__k

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

<Ref> tags s__k

stevertigo-2
The apple
<ref name=foo>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html
|title=Foo panel disagress with bar
|first=Foo
|last=Bar
|date=2006-10-17
|publisher=The Sunday Times
|accessdate=October 17
|accessyear=2006}}
</ref>
is red.

Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with
editing text?

-sv
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Thomas Dalton
> Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with
> editing text?

Do you have a solution? The only thing I can think of is putting all
the references at the beginning and then just putting <ref
name="foo"/> in the main text, but that would mean a big block of code
at the top of every page (or at least every page that is properly
sourced) and I'm not sure if it's possible to stop the top of each
page looking like a numberline.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Luna-4
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the "real"
one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref name="foo"/> in
the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the article,
above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose that
would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is
surmountable.

Thoughts?

On 12/9/06, stvrtg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The apple
> <ref name=foo>
> {{cite web
> |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html
> |title=Foo panel disagress with bar
> |first=Foo
> |last=Bar
> |date=2006-10-17
> |publisher=The Sunday Times
> |accessdate=October 17
> |accessyear=2006}}
> </ref>
> is red.
>
> Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with
> editing text?
>
> -sv
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Thomas Dalton
> Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the "real"
> one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref name="foo"/> in
> the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the article,
> above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose that
> would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is
> surmountable.

If they can go at the bottom, then it should be ok. I was under the
impression the first use had to be the full one, if that's not so,
then great! A numberline at the bottom isn't too bad, although the
extra letter on each reference linking to the bottom of the page would
still be annoying... we need some kind of noinclude option for refs...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>> Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the "real"
>> one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref name="foo"/> in
>> the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the article,
>> above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose that
>> would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is
>> surmountable.
>
> If they can go at the bottom, then it should be ok. I was under the
> impression the first use had to be the full one, if that's not so,
> then great! A numberline at the bottom isn't too bad, although the
> extra letter on each reference linking to the bottom of the page would
> still be annoying... we need some kind of noinclude option for refs...
>
See Bug 5997.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

James Hare
I think it should be reformed -- that is, it should be done the other way
around.

<ref name="foobar"/>

then, at the bottom,

<references>
foobar=When "Thingamajig" Isn't Enough: A History of Foo Bar. Jim Cadigan.
1997
</references>

or something like that

On 12/9/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the
> "real"
> >> one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref
> name="foo"/> in
> >> the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the
> article,
> >> above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose
> that
> >> would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is
> >> surmountable.
> >
> > If they can go at the bottom, then it should be ok. I was under the
> > impression the first use had to be the full one, if that's not so,
> > then great! A numberline at the bottom isn't too bad, although the
> > extra letter on each reference linking to the bottom of the page would
> > still be annoying... we need some kind of noinclude option for refs...
> >
>
> See Bug 5997.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Luna-4
Messedrocker has a pretty good suggestion, there, I think. Difficult to say,
but I *think* that setup might make more sense for newcomers? In addition to
fixing the problems originally brought up in this thread.

Given the number of lines of text these things might entail, it might be
easier for parsing and human readability if there's something just a little
more elaborate to delineate the start of each ref. I'm not sure what that
would be, though.

On 12/9/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think it should be reformed -- that is, it should be done the other way
> around.
>
> <ref name="foobar"/>
>
> then, at the bottom,
>
> <references>
> foobar=When "Thingamajig" Isn't Enough: A History of Foo Bar. Jim Cadigan.
> 1997
> </references>
>
> or something like that
>
> On 12/9/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > >> Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the
>
> > "real"
> > >> one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref
> > name="foo"/> in
> > >> the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the
> > article,
> > >> above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose
> > that
> > >> would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is
> > >> surmountable.
> > >
> > > If they can go at the bottom, then it should be ok. I was under the
> > > impression the first use had to be the full one, if that's not so,
> > > then great! A numberline at the bottom isn't too bad, although the
> > > extra letter on each reference linking to the bottom of the page would
> > > still be annoying... we need some kind of noinclude option for refs...
> > >
> >
> > See Bug 5997.
> >
> > --
> > Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> > Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> > "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> > Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
On 12/9/06, stvrtg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with
> editing text?

Me. The idea that one puts a reference near the referred-to text is
good in principle - in that it makes it harder to lose the reference -
but the interaction of that with the 'cite blah' templates is poor.
They're bulky, and that causes a problem.  The flow of the text is
lost, making editing less natural.

The problem with putting the actual reference text in the references
section and referring to it by name in the text is that the two are
then separated and easier to break.  However, I'd prefer that to the
ugly mess the current <ref> tags make of the running text.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
stvrtg wrote:

>The apple
><ref name=foo>
>{{cite web
>|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html
>|title=Foo panel disagress with bar
>|first=Foo
>|last=Bar
>|date=2006-10-17
>|publisher=The Sunday Times
>|accessdate=October 17
>|accessyear=2006}}
></ref>
>is red.
>
>Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with
>editing text?
>
Looks like the geeks are running amok again.  What's the matter with
normal WYSIWYG text inside simple <ref> tags?  Promoting better
sourcing, and adding all that garbage formatting are mutually exclusive.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with
>> editing text?
>
> Do you have a solution? The only thing I can think of is putting all
> the references at the beginning and then just putting <ref
> name="foo"/> in the main text, but that would mean a big block of code
> at the top of every page (or at least every page that is properly
> sourced) and I'm not sure if it's possible to stop the top of each
> page looking like a numberline.

I had the notion once of a reference: namespace, used just like the
template: namespace but solely for references. That way instead of
having every last detail duplicated in every article that used that ref
you could have

<ref name="foo">{{reference:foo}}</ref>

or perhaps for larger references like books,

<ref name="foo">{{reference:foo}}, p. 21-22</ref>

If we wanted to be daring we could have the <ref> tags be automatically
generated for transclusions like this, perhaps using a bar to tack
additions on like a parameter. {{reference:foo|, p. 21-22}} for example.


This would have the benefit of:

*preventing duplication of effort between articles that use the same
reference
*maintaining a more uniform format for reference text
*allowing easier tracking of which articles use which references

It would have the downside of:

*making it harder to find the text of the reference if you want to edit
it, much like with regular templates
*requiring some sort of naming convention that is consistent, unique,
but not so elaborate as to make it pointless to put the reference in a
separate page
*cross-article references could be more vulnerable to subtle vandalism
or honest mistakes. If one article used a source to cite one fact and
another article used the same source to cite another fact, and then
someone who only knows about its use at the first article fiddles with
it, it might invalidate its use in the second article.

This is just an idea I kicked around once, there's probably all sorts of
other problems I haven't thought of yet.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (258 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Bryan Derksen
In reply to this post by James Hare
James Hare wrote:

> I think it should be reformed -- that is, it should be done the other way
> around.
>
> <ref name="foobar"/>
>
> then, at the bottom,
>
> <references>
> foobar=When "Thingamajig" Isn't Enough: A History of Foo Bar. Jim Cadigan.
> 1997
> </references>
>
> or something like that
The old {{ref}}/{{note}} template system was like that and I've
developed a strong distaste for it. I've done a lot of cleanup since
cite.php was introduced and there were a lot of articles with dangling
{{ref}}s that pointed nowhere or orphan {{note}}s that were no longer
referenced. Cite.php isn't perfect but I like that those errors either
can't happen at all (orphan footnotes don't exist) or produce obvious
visual effects that allow them to be easily noticed and fixed (refs with
no content appear as empty footnotes).

I suppose it's possible that by having it built into the wiki code
explicitly rather than tacked on with a template hack will allow some of
these issues to be made less of a problem, but my gut reaction is still
negative at the thought of going back to a system similar to the old one.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (258 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

geni
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On 12/10/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Looks like the geeks are running amok again.  What's the matter with
> normal WYSIWYG text inside simple <ref> tags?

You are free to do that. Certianly it is what I do

>  Promoting better
> sourcing, and adding all that garbage formatting are mutually exclusive.

It isn't garbage formatting. It is a template designed to make
reference more standard and less work and it manages both for those
who learn how to use it. For the rest of us there is long hand.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Sam Korn
On 12/10/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 12/10/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Looks like the geeks are running amok again.  What's the matter with
> > normal WYSIWYG text inside simple <ref> tags?
>
> You are free to do that. Certianly it is what I do

Ditto.  And woe betide anyone who goes after me "clearing up"!

> >  Promoting better
> > sourcing, and adding all that garbage formatting are mutually exclusive.
>
> It isn't garbage formatting. It is a template designed to make
> reference more standard and less work and it manages both for those
> who learn how to use it.

True.  Solution: {{subst:cite web|...

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Ligulem
Sam Korn wrote:
>
> True.  Solution: {{subst:cite web|...
>

Oh really? :-)

{{subst:cite web
|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html
|title=Foo panel disagress with bar
|first=Foo
|last=Bar
|date=2006-10-17
|publisher=The Sunday Times
|accessdate=October 17
|accessyear=2006}}

inserts the following verbatim into the wiki source of the article:

{
#if: {{#if: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html |
{{#if: Foo panel disagress with bar |1}}}}
   ||Error on call to [[Template:cite web]]: Parameters '''url''' and
'''title''' must be specified
}}{{
#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}{{{archivedate|}}}
   | {{#if: {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}| {{#if: {{{archivedate|}}} |1}}}}
     ||Error on call to [[template:cite web]]: Parameters
'''archiveurl''' and '''archivedate''' must be both specified or both
omitted
}}
}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar
   | {{#if: {{{authorlink|}}}
     | [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: Bar
       | Bar{{#if: Foo | , Foo }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}]]
     | {{#if: Bar
       | Bar{{#if: Foo | , Foo }}
       | {{{author}}}
     }}
   }}
}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar
   | {{#if: {{{coauthors|}}}| <nowiki>;</nowiki>&#32;{{{coauthors}}} }}
}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar|
     {{#if: 2006-10-17
     | &#32;(2006-10-17)
     | {{#if: {{{year|}}}
       | {{#if: {{{month|}}}
         | &#32;({{{month}}} {{{year}}})
         | &#32;({{{year}}})
       }}
     }}
   |}}
}}{{#if: Bar{{{author|}}}
   | .&#32;}}{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}
     | {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}} | {{#if: Foo panel disagress with bar |
[{{{archiveurl}}} Foo panel disagress with bar] }}}}
     | {{#if: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html |
{{#if: Foo panel disagress with bar |
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html Foo panel
disagress with bar] }}}}
}}{{#if: {{{language|}}} | &#32;<span style="font-size: 0.95em;
font-weight: bold; color:#555; position: relative;">({{{language}}})</span>
}}{{#if: {{{format|}}}
   | &#32;({{{format|}}})
}}{{#if: {{{work|}}}
   | .&#32;''{{{work}}}''
}}{{#if: {{{pages|}}}
   | &#32;{{{pages}}}
}}{{#if: The Sunday Times
   | .&#32;The Sunday Times{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar
     |
     | {{#if: 2006-10-17{{{year|}}}{{{month|}}} || }}
   }}
}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar
   ||{{#if: 2006-10-17
     | &#32;(2006-10-17)
     | {{#if: {{{year|}}}
       | {{#if: {{{month|}}}
         | &#32;({{{month}}} {{{year}}})
         | &#32;({{{year}}})
       }}
     }}
   }}
}}.{{#if: {{{archivedate|}}}
   | &#32;Archived from
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html the original] on
[[{{{archivedate}}}]].
}}{{#if: October 17
   | &#32;Retrieved on [[October 17]]{{#if: 2006 | , [[2006]] }}.
}}{{#if: {{{accessmonthday|}}}
   | &#32;Retrieved on {{{accessmonthday}}}, 2006.
}}{{#if: {{{quote|}}}
   | &nbsp;“{{{quote}}}”
}}


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Sam Korn
On 12/10/06, Ligulem <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sam Korn wrote:
> >
> > True.  Solution: {{subst:cite web|...
> >
>
> Oh really? :-)
>
> {{subst:cite web
> |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html
> |title=Foo panel disagress with bar
> |first=Foo
> |last=Bar
> |date=2006-10-17
> |publisher=The Sunday Times
> |accessdate=October 17
> |accessyear=2006}}
>
> inserts the following verbatim into the wiki source of the article:
>
> {
> #if: {{#if: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html |
> {{#if: Foo panel disagress with bar |1}}}}
[snip]

Yuck yuck yuck.

I retract my previous comment.  This is what comes of absurdly
complicated template syntax.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Thomas Dalton
> I retract my previous comment.  This is what comes of absurdly
> complicated template syntax.

Or the lack of a recursive subst option. There should be a way to get
MediaWiki to include just the code that is actually displayed, so
automatically substing any subtemplates, resolving any if statements
when you make the edit, rather than each time it's displayed, etc.
something like {{totalsubst:template}}.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Ligulem
In reply to this post by Sam Korn
Sam Korn wrote:
> Yuck yuck yuck.
>
> I retract my previous comment.  This is what comes of absurdly
> complicated template syntax.
>

No. Just non-intuitive behaviour of subst. :-)

You might want to "vote" for
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2777

In the mean time, you can copy/paste the call into
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates and paste the
result into the article.

If that's what you prefer (or the consensus may be)...

The Germans use a list of red tape for the formatting at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Literatur#Format.

And they never change that. For obvious reasons :-)




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Thomas Dalton
> In the mean time, you can copy/paste the call into
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates and paste the
> result into the article.

How did I not know that page existed? Is it not linked to from anywhere?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Sam Korn
In reply to this post by Ligulem
On 12/10/06, Ligulem <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
> > Yuck yuck yuck.
> >
> > I retract my previous comment.  This is what comes of absurdly
> > complicated template syntax.
> >
>
> No. Just non-intuitive behaviour of subst. :-)

... allied with an absurdly complicated template syntax. :-)

> You might want to "vote" for
> http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2777

Have done so. Thanks.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <Ref> tags s__k

Ligulem
In reply to this post by Ligulem
Ligulem wrote:
> The Germans use a list of red tape for the formatting at
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Literatur#Format.
>
> And they never change that. For obvious reasons :-)

Addendum: just found out that the "full" German red tape is even longer:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Literatur/Formatierungsregeln

Quote from that page:

"Die bisher verwandten Regeln unter Literatur sind unvollständig und
werden uneinheitlich angewandt, weshalb detailliertere Regeln notwendig
sind."

("The current rules are incomplete and not applied uniformly. Rules
which go into more detail are needed")

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12