So, what's happening here? Even though the structure of the French Wikitravel Expedition is good, it still hasn't been moving forward for weeks. Perhaps it would be necessary to speak with the large French Wikipedia community - perhaps place a notice on the front page mentioning this expedition so we can get more users to finally form the French Wikitravel. That's what happened with the Romanian Wikitravel - it was and still is "advertised" on the Wikipedia main page and it gathered users. So, good luck and hopefully we can get some progress with this expedition! Ronline 01:51, 18 Jan 2004 (EST)
- I just announced it on the Bistro. I'm not frequent enough on the French Wikipedia to put something on the main page, but hopefully that'll catch some eyes. -phma 09:22, 18 Jan 2004 (EST)
- Actually, I am strongly against aggressive recruiting from Wikipedias. We have a fairly tenuous good relationship with Wikipedia as a whole, and I'd rather not have it damaged by looking like we're abusing their site to advertise this one. So, please be respectful if you decide you want to do this.
- I probably also need to remind folks that Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project. We're not like Wikibooks or Wiktionary. We're something different. So, we're not part of the "family" at Wikimedia web sites; we're guests. --Evan 11:20, 18 Jan 2004 (EST)
- Another reason why I put it on the Bistro. Putting a note on people's talk pages would be aggressive; putting it on the main page would be too bold; putting it on the Bistro isn't, I think. I first learned of Wikitravel because someone said that an article on Wikipedia belongs on Wikitravel. -phma 15:48, 18 Jan 2004 (EST)
- Well, it's up to you what you want to do, but the Bistro listing seems to be working, as there are 3 users already! Hopefully, we can get 5 as soon as possible. Considering Wikipedia, I know we're not a Wikimedia project, but they really are related projects and many people here (me for example ;-) have come from Wikipedia and are still active at Wikipedia, so we have a good relationship with the main contributors of our language version of Wikipedia and can "recommend" Wikitravel to them. On Romanian Wikipedia anyway (I don't know if on others) important things and news can be put on the front page and people were actually very happy about Wikitravel in Romanian (well, in a way it was the second language version - national pride always attracts people ;-)
- But anyway, it's really, really good to see the French Wikitravel Expedition starting up. By the way, out of curiosity, where is the Bistro? Is it a place on French Wikipedia? Ronline 17:55, 18 Jan 2004 (EST)
- Yes, I just looked at French Wikipedia - Bistro is like the Travellers' Pub. By the way, I am intent on starting an Estonian Wikitravel Expedition and will talk to the Estonian Wikipedia via similar means. Bonne chance avec le Wikitravel français, Ronline 18:00, 18 Jan 2004 (EST)
- The announcement has been taken off Bistro, which is very busy. Would someone like to announce it on Accueil? -phma 11:01, 26 Jan 2004 (EST)
So, I'd love to get this language version started. I don't think it'd be really responsible of me to join the Expedition, though, as I should probably stay focused on the whole shebang.
I'd like to start the interface translation process, though, so we could maybe get a quick start when Mystery Guest #5 finally signs up. Any objections?
By the way, I'd support waiving the 5-member rule if the 4 people who've signed up already expect that they can get the necessary work done -- help text, MoS, About, etc. -- in the first month or so, without a fifth helper. --Evan 16:43, 4 Feb 2004 (EST)
- So, what to do now? Yann 09:19, 7 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Pick a go-between for the French and English Wikitravels. You 5 need to figure out how to do that. The Romanian group did it by voting. At the very least, the go-between should be bilingual, have time to do a report once a month, and be familiar with English Wikitravel. They should probably also have the unleadership skills :-) necessary to get a new Wiki off the ground.
- After that -- actually, I'll be doing it at the same time -- I'll set up the French wiki, and then we're off to the races. --Evan 18:07, 7 Feb 2004 (EST)
Interface files to translate
So, as mentioned before, we need to translate the interface file into French in order to set it up. I've put up the English Wikitravel interface file, as well as a starter French version, based on the file distributed with MediaWiki.
Probably the best way to attack this is just to go through the French Wikipedia version, and compare each entry to the one in the English Wikitravel version. If they're different, translate the the English Wikitravel version into French. Some good thing to look out for: license info, site name, etc.
Thanks for everyone helping out on this. --Evan 13:52, 5 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Hi, I remplaced all occurences of Wikipedia by Wikitravel, and GFDL by licence Creative Commons Share-Alike. It seems ok to me now. Yann 15:23, 5 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Ok for me --Pontauxchats 05:27, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)
"Francophone" not "French"
So, one complaint I've heard on the wikipedia-l mailing list is that the French Wikipedia has a lot of problems between contributors from France and contributors from the rest of "francophonie". Some people seem to consider the "French" in "French Wikipedia" to mean "by and for citizens of France" rather than "in the French language". So some discussions about language by Quebecois, Swiss, Belgian, African, or other francophone contributors are dismissed.
Given that there's something like 30 countries world-wide with significant francophone populations, I think it'd be a shame to lose contributors from these countries based on a national versus linguistic definition of "French Wikitravel".
I'm wondering what the best way to specify that this is the French language Wikitravel and not French national Wikitravel. I'd thought about calling it "Wikitravel francophone", but I'm now wondering if it's not just a wee bit patronizing to spell things out entirely for French-speaking contributors. I mean, nobody seems to confuse "English Wikitravel" to mean "Wikitravel for citizens of England", to the exclusion of Scots, Canadians, Americans, New Zealanders, Jamaicans, Australians, etc.
Would there be another clear way to say that "Wikitravel français" means "Wikitravel francophone"? --Evan 16:07, 8 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Of course, I agree with you. In French, "français" means from/about France and "francophone" means French speaking, but I am not sure if the meaning is the same in English. Yann 16:37, 8 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Yes, the meaning is different in English. --Dawnview 22:58, 8 Feb 2004 (EST)
"Wikitravel francophone" sounds funny to me. Wikitravel doesn't have a voice, except for the Romanian sound samples, so I have trouble picturing a Wikitravel with a French sound. "Wikitravel français" sounds fine to me, though ambiguous, but since at least three of us are not in France, that makes it clear. Now if the Cypriots someday start writing Greek and Turkish in the Welsh Wikitravel, then we'll have a problem. -phma 18:02, 8 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Interestingly, my welcome message to the French Wikipedia calls it "Wikipedia francophone"! That aside, I think we can probably put some information somewhere in the FAQ or About that specifically points out the French language rather than French national nature of the project.
- I think it might be worthwhile to start considering what language rules will be used on the site, though. --Evan 18:31, 8 Feb 2004 (EST)
- I agree with Wikitravel francophone rather than Wikitravel française (french WT). I don't want to see the same behaviour than on fr:WP, where many people forget the rest of the globe... --Pontauxchats 05:27, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)
I notice Pontauxchats has been voting for three different users! Is this OK, because I think it does open up the possibility of there being a tie between three potential go-betweens. I think the easiest, most democratic and fairest way would be for each user to only vote for 'one' go-between. Anyway, it's great to see the French Wikitravel going ahead - keep it up! Ronline 07:35, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)
- I think it should be limited to one for and one against. Of course it is possible for A to vote for B, B for C, C for D, D for E, and E for A and there be no winner. -phma 10:43, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Sorry, I didn't read enough... So I'll choose one (and only one) of them. Just note that I voted for two (and not 3) users. :o) --Pontauxchats 10:49, 9 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Sorry - I now realise you only voted for two people and one against. Yes, so one for and one against is OK. I think it looks like there is one definite winner in the go-betweens! Ronline 03:27, 10 Feb 2004 (EST)
- We can't declare a winner until Nikolai votes. The result could be a tie. -phma 07:23, 10 Feb 2004 (EST)
- Yes, or wait for an other volunteer, cause it seems nikolaï is a mort-né... :o( Moreover, Mark didn't vote for anybody. --Pontauxchats 07:55, 10 Feb 2004 (EST)