Talk:Brussels

Wouldn't it be best to put the news items and photo reports apart? Now everything is together and it seems more logical to put photo's and video reports from participants an a reports section and news items (with or without photo's/video/audio) in a news/press section. Good idea or not?

I've noticed someone put everything of this years ride in a different article/page and them someone else put it back on. Maybe a bit of discussion would help. Just to make sure we don't undo each others work.

--Psi36 05:24, 2 July 2007 (PDT)

---

good idea, psi36. But can it wait one month ? (I think this would facilitate the brussels page-use of our readers this month/summer) --Velojef 10:30, 2 July 2007 (PDT)

---

It's already much better now. Somehow a couple of people where editing the page in a different way and it became somewhat of a mess. But now it's clearer again. I agree it is better to keep the info of this years ride on the first page for a while, including the press info and everything that was on here before the ride --Psi36 00:47, 3 July 2007 (PDT)

Image use request

Hello, WNBR Seattle would be interested in possibly licensing one of your flyers for our ride. It would need to be slightly changed for our event since locals speak english and we have two WNBR summer events. Can someone contact me please? Thanks!

Daniel Johnson (you can call me on my cell phone at 206 369 2661) Seattle WNBR apr2007 @ worldnakedbikeride.org

Languages layout, and History

There are two issues that I think need to be dealt with, which have ramifications elsewhere (eg: Seattle). Since you're based in Belgium (?), perhaps you could put your energy into addressing these points:

• For the Brighton & Hove ride, I've set up pages for Photos, Video, Media Coverage, History (aka ride reports) etc that cover all previous years of the ride. The benefit of doing this over making year-specific history pages (eg: Brussels 2009 history, etc) is that the number of sub-pages will stay more or less the same however many years the ride runs for. It also makes batch formatting of these sections easier.

• The Brussels page is, by necessity, in three languages. However, this makes for a very cumbersome page. It would be much better to split the translations into Brussels (English), Fr:Bruxelles and Nl:Brussel (?). Do you agree? Could you set about doing this?

– Nsayers 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The colums for languages are a very common sight in Belgium (having officially German, French, Dutch, and often courtesy to English).

It is utterly impossible to maintain separate pages: The capital has no separate French-speaking and Dutch-speaking WNBRs, and none at all in English. Thus the content needs to be equivalent and synchronous in three languages. I can't imagine many speakers of French going to translate their edits into (in particular for readers who can't see the original) understandable Dutch and English: often unable, unwilling, or both. My apologies to the exception I would appreciate to make his/her acquaintance.

• Even in a near ideal world, one would need to make every edit in three separate pages: I can't do this with acceptable results, unless I would have three laptops in front of me and for every paragraph or long sentence I write or modify, including e.g. a change in the layout, immediately jump to both other open pages that I need to see in normal screen width. Oh, I'd have to Save each paragraph so as to reopen that language's page on both other pc's copy e.g. a link, switch to the pc's language version, and paste. OK, I don't need an ideal world then.
• In a slightly less ideal world, people would constantly bother me on my talk page to fix one or two other languages according to their edits. If I wouldn't promptly react, an invitation to read the message on my talk is going to arrive at Psi36's talk page. Imagine having to compare pages' history edits so as to understand what was changed, and then...
• In the real world, I would have to check my watchlist to find at which pages edits occurred. Then check some Excel table in which I would have to keep track of my last synchronisation for that page. On its edit history compare the relevant old edit with the current version, interpret where one has moved paragraphs up or down, improve what needs to be improved, then start editing the two other pages, only to find out that these have been modified by three other editors in an opposing direction. Whom am I going to follow, each modification having its own merits?

In short, I'd better put an extra line into Previous rides data:

|| 2011-//-// || Belgium || Brussels || 0 || Cancelled, no more rides to be expected.

And in case the event would be rescued by the discussion group, I don't think anyone would bother to change that line into:

|| 2011-06-17 || Belgium || Brussels || 25 || For mysterious reasons, only a quarter of earlier expected participants turned up.

I have a distinct feeling that we better maintain our three colums: while writing a paragraph, the table format automatically shows the three languages on top of one another, in plain view: very easy to make one's own translations if one can, to copy/paste a link into the other languages. (Imagine having to do 'that between separate pre-existing pages.) Or one simply leaves the paragraph blank for one or two languages. While reading the article, the need is immediately spotted and simply opening the page at hand at that paragraph, allows translating the row's missing parts.

Perhaps because few people are able to modify text in three languages, there a few editors who modify sentences. A look at the edit history of the one page every now and then should suffice to know where to check. More often, even unconsciously, one compares text between the columns: that format allows spotting most anomalies literally at a glance: a column simply appears different from both others.

By the way, the page 'Brussels' would exist no more than what's-it in Japanese. Why would anyone bother? Brussels is not Cy:Caerdydd in South Wales, where English is often the first language. Of countries that have to inform their public in a non-English language, and that have no English-speaking compatriots, how many pages are maintained in English, Nick?

SomeHuman 2010-03-03 01:08-01:36 (GMT)

About presenting Brussels' previous rides, in short:

With your method, one might already with the current few rides, have to crawl through long lists of 'Brussels photos' – thus requiring a separate page for the 'Brussels videos', etc. People tend to be interested in seeing both of a same year's event, and read the reviews about it too. If anyone ever has a look at the old rides, that is.

The current linking between Brussels pages, is just as easy to use but less cluttering than between 'Brussels photos' section 2009, 'Brussels videos' | 2009, 'Brussels media coverage' | 2009, 'Brussels reviews' | 2009, 'Brussels presentations' | 2009, 'Brussels other matters' | 2009 – and such for each year in each topic's page. Having the 'Reviews', 'Photos', 'Videos' and 'Media' sections at top of each 'Brussels 20<nn> history', allows keeping the for most readers hardly interesting lengthiest parts (often largely repeating former years), out of sight.

Nevertheless, there is no risk that any page would ever grow longer than main 'Brussels', thus no risk that one will ever need to revise the method. The style of sectioning what we like to distinct today, may well become outdated: Wiki's tend to evolve. That would cause no problem for the current method of archiving Brussels, but would probably require complex changes in Brighton & Hove's archives. Or Brighton & Hove might not follow the most modern, desirable trends as aptly and fluently, restraint by its sectional archiving method.

For instance, one might prefer showing a selection of 50 best photos for each year directly visible in a page, keeping the series of links to many hundreds of pictures to please the people that are shown in those. I, for instance, have to admit that I never looked at all the linked photos for Brussels' years before my participating... but I would like to see their well preselected best photos. No problem for current archiving of Brussels, but Brighton & Hove would need as many 'Brighton & Hove 20<nn> photos' as there are 'Brussels 20<nn> history' (provided a same number of rides occurred at both locations); thus it would keep having the number of topic pages more than Brussels requires.

Seattle's multiple rides a year, may require another approach: I assume there will be very little new information between rides [a shorter period, well established info] and fewer photos etc because one has seen it all before, and not even a long time ago. It is the exception, and can not be the model for other locations. In fact, though I definitely appreciate your suggestion, we should allow each location's group to decide what is best. Styles of presenting things might even be culturally determined - e.g. the for Belgians appropriate language colums could be awfully bewildering to monolingual cultures. Such might also apply for archiving methods, sectioning, etc.

SomeHuman 2010-03-03 01:08-07:08 (GMT)