In that case, I'm to blame - at least in part. Yecril97pl made changes to that page, then complained that links were broken because they were across sections (I can't remember the exact details). Since a bullet list doesn't need additional space, I removed the additional lines, but marked it as not affecting translations. The idea was that translators could pick it up when doing something more significant, but it would only be making work to do it separately. Sorry it caused a problem - I don't really understand what's happening with regard to the old translations. Perhaps if Nikerabbit can explain that, I can avoid it in future.
If I understand this correctly, unit T8 is an old translation unit that has been removed long ago, so its contents is outdated. If so, we need to remove that unit-nr and reinstate the units from before Yecril97pl's changes, otherwise the recent translations with the proper links will be lost from translations. If Yecril97pl for some reason added unit-nr T8, that would explain why links suddenly failed.
At least it appears that fuzzybot has not gone mad after all, which is a great relief.
I never touched unit numbers. I only complained that the translation tags should not span sections.
Yes, I see that unit T8 was in the source all the time. It seems, however, that beeing placed between </ translate> and < translate> tags, it was "disabled". Following the various edits it must have somehow ended up beeing activated, causing ancient content to be inserted in the translated pages.
If this is correct then we should probably remove the T8 unit tag so that this kind of problem will not hit us again.
Lessons are learned :-) If I ever need to do anything like that again I will remove the leading tag as well as the internal ones, and let the system re-tag it.
BTW, I'm still seeing people add tags manually. There is a strange reluctance to read the guidelines, where we have prominent reminders that this breaks the system.
Can these meaningless changes be reverted? They do anything but harm and useless noise, imho.
This kind of formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the wiki and is very hard to be changed according to my language rules for this kind of texts.
I will attempt to track down all similar edits today and revert them.
An introduction to KDE/uk still shows my layout. What is wrong with it?
Yes it is. After 5 or more tries to do this. It is hard to change this beautiful layout. Can you stop changing the layouts as you like? Thanks.
I am sorry if these questions seem silly—I am just trying hard to understand what you mean.
But an itemization is semantically better than a list (because it reflects the author’s intention better), and we cannot convert all similar lists to itemizations in one step, can we? Note that the default style sheet can be changed to make itemizations look exactly like they looked before, if that is what you are after.
OK. But I'd rather say do it by yourself and do not do what "author intended to do or say". I also do not understand the changes that make things look "exactly like they looked before".
Moreover, please avoid this formatting in documentation (it is not clear for me how this can be transformed into docbook).
Yurchor, are you saying that we should avoid using ";" for formatting all together or are you simply saying don't change formatting unless it is actually broken? If the first is the case we need to add something about that on the Toolbox page. We do have a few pages, that use ";" formatting. Should we change those as we find them?
";" is good for anything but docs, imho. But I cannot understand when things that are not broken in any kind are changed just because someone likes something to be constantly changed. There are many not-so-popular pages (even without translations) to experiment with them.
is both visually and formally broken. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is some anonymous character fuming and charging at each em-dash inserted into the text.
And it should be easier, not harder, to transform itemizations to DocBook, because they have more internal structure.
I was not experimenting, the format for marking up itemizations is well known.
Can you give some IRS on the following statements?
It would be also good if you promise to chack every page for using "the format for marking up itemizations".
Thanks in advance.
It is visually broken because the hyphen should be used to join words, not to separate clauses.
It is formally broken because it fixes a rendering of the formal structure instead of entering the structure itself.
To transform a definition in the wiki, render the text to XHTML as if for the client and then use an XML transformation to convert it to DocBook. The transformation will deal with dt and dd, not with
:. Assuming that you do not expect me to write the whole thing from scratch, just show me what you already have and I shall add the missing part.