[opensuse-wiki] Report: templates documentation and other bits
Hi, I've spent some time working on documenting the templates in wiki.o.o as suggested in [1], so here is small report and some random thoughts: 1. Every template (except a few - more on this below) in wiki.o.o instance now has its /doc subpage with information about how to use the template (code), general description, where to use it/not to use it and in some cases there is also list of related templates. The documentation could definitely not perfect, but IMHO it is a good start to having general policy that every template should be documented. 2. It seems nobody has objections against making it policy that every $template has to be documented in $template/doc, so I'll mention it in [2] (this is yet to be done if nobody raises objections). 3. The exceptions for which I did not make /doc subpage, as mentioned in point 1, are: Template:App \ Template:Appg | Template:Appk +-> I don't understand what are these good for Template:Appj / Template:Meeting - marked as 'template to rethink', looks useless to me Template:Infobox software, Template:Information: these two templates look very similar, I don't get the difference. Are both really needed? 4. TOCRight template: do we really need this? In en.o.o, only a few pages use this template and IMHO it doesn't look very nice. 5. The templates related to portals were taken from wikipedia, where these templates are also perfectly documented. IMO it would be useless to copy their documentation to wiki.o.o, so I've basically just linked the documentation to our wiki. 6. There are several navigation bar templates in the wiki. I think these templates might be placed into something like [[Category:NavBars]], so it would be easier to find proper Navbar when creating new article. Wikipedia uses something similar. What do you think? 7. I've fixed capitalization of categories, so all the categories now follow the naming conventions. 8. ATM, the documentation of a template is displayed below the template content, which is fine for small templates like AI [3], but isn't so fine for bigger templates like Article boilerplate [4]. If the user opens [4], the documentation should be better visible. I see two options, none of them ideal: a) put the documentation above the template content b) make the template content <includeonly>, so only the documentation would be visible, but then it couldn't be used as an example of recommended article layout. Any ideas? 9. Template:{Torrent, Video} These two templates were implemented using titled-click-external template, which a) isn't in wiki.o.o b) is deprecated according to Wikipedia So I've reworked Video and Torrent templates using [[image:Video.png|22px|link={{{1}}}]] syntax. It should work the same way as before except that it now adds another icon representing external link [5]. I don't know how to get rid of this icon (does it mind actually??), so if ((this is not desired && can not be fixed) || (there are some other drawbacks I didn't notice)), then please revert these two templates back. [1] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-wiki/2010-02/msg00055.html [2] http://wiki.opensuse.org/Help:Template [3] http://wiki.opensuse.org/Template:AI [4] http://wiki.opensuse.org/Template:Article [5] http://wiki.opensuse.org/User:Puzel/Test Petr -- Petr Uzel, openSUSE Boosters Team IRC: ptr_uzl @ freenode
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:05:27 Petr Uzel wrote:
Hi, I've spent some time working on documenting the templates in wiki.o.o as suggested in [1], so here is small report and some random thoughts:
1. Every template (except a few - more on this below) in wiki.o.o instance now has its /doc subpage with information about how to use the template (code), general description, where to use it/not to use it and in some cases there is also list of related templates. The documentation could definitely not perfect, but IMHO it is a good start to having general policy that every template should be documented.
NavBar is one too many :) The name violates convention not to use CamelCase and keeping exceptions to the accepted rules at minimum is one way to help new editors. One thing lesser to remember when they start for the first time.
2. It seems nobody has objections against making it policy that every $template has to be documented in $template/doc, so I'll mention it in [2] (this is yet to be done if nobody raises objections).
Yes, it should go in template creation rules/conventions.
3. The exceptions for which I did not make /doc subpage, as mentioned in point 1, are: Template:App \ Template:Appg | Template:Appk +-> I don't understand what are these good for Template:Appj /
IMHO, they useless. It is yet another new wiki editor trying to save typing using templates. Besides, titles violate custom not to use words and abbreviations that are in common use in many topics, like here App (application), that many project may want to use and it is good only as title of disambiguation page. Also it violates another rule, not to use cryptic names like Appg, Appk, Appj, that no one in the world can guess what they stand for. I guess even author after some time will have trouble to answer the question:"What is AppX ?"
Template:Meeting - marked as 'template to rethink', looks useless to me
Interesting is how it landed on new wiki. In old wiki it was used until February 2009. It doesn't bring anything that you can't find on meeting pages. My vote is to get rid of it now.
Template:Infobox software, Template:Information: these two templates look very similar, I don't get the difference. Are both really needed?
That is one of duplicate templates that should be fixed on old wiki, but it was transferred during initial experiments with new wiki as part of Category:Education. "Infobox software" is to some extent good name/title, at least it is common on Wikipedia. "Information" is good only for disambiguation page, or in Template namespace as name of template that is base for other templates. IMO, merge both to "Infobox software", and remove category Education form the template.
4. TOCRight template: do we really need this? In en.o.o, only a few pages use this template and IMHO it doesn't look very nice.
It also doesn't play nice with the rest of the page. We usually use tables to limit size of the Table of content (TOC).
5. The templates related to portals were taken from wikipedia, where these templates are also perfectly documented. IMO it would be useless to copy their documentation to wiki.o.o, so I've basically just linked the documentation to our wiki.
That is good if we update templates with Wikipedia, but if we will keep them as they are, then copy is probably better option. This is valid for anything that we use from other sources, but so far I know we still don't have this written as policy.
6. There are several navigation bar templates in the wiki. I think these templates might be placed into something like [[Category:NavBars]], so it would be easier to find proper Navbar when creating new article. Wikipedia uses something similar. What do you think?
+1 Besides we can use full name for category so that reader can see what it is about without reading description, like you already used for: http://wiki.opensuse.org/Category:Template_documentation sub Category:Navigational templates sub Category:Navigational bars
7. I've fixed capitalization of categories, so all the categories now follow the naming conventions.
Thanks :)
8. ATM, the documentation of a template is displayed below the template content, which is fine for small templates like AI [3], but isn't so fine for bigger templates like Article boilerplate [4]. If the user opens [4], the documentation should be better visible. I see two options, none of them ideal: a) put the documentation above the template content b) make the template content <includeonly>, so only the documentation would be visible, but then it couldn't be used as an example of recommended article layout. Any ideas?
We have to address this more thoroughly. Current article template is: 1) meant for only one type of article, user help; we have other topics that may not need this kind of template, or need different type; 2) it is all in one: template, help and sample layout; we have to break this in pieces to make it easier to use. To skip explanation, I'll try to come up with some illustration what I mean.
9. Template:{Torrent, Video} These two templates were implemented using titled-click-external template, which a) isn't in wiki.o.o b) is deprecated according to Wikipedia So I've reworked Video and Torrent templates using [[image:Video.png|22px|link={{{1}}}]] syntax. It should work the same way as before except that it now adds another icon representing external link [5]. I don't know how to get rid of this icon (does it mind actually??), so if ((this is not desired && can not be fixed) || (there are some other drawbacks I didn't notice)), then please revert these two templates back.
I deleted the rest of templates that used depreciated "Titled click" template, those 2 somehow survived. With new format for File (Image) anyone can add any link to any image, so workaround templates based on "Titled click" are not needed anymore. Do we have any other use case for such templates?
[1] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-wiki/2010-02/msg00055.html [2] http://wiki.opensuse.org/Help:Template [3] http://wiki.opensuse.org/Template:AI [4] http://wiki.opensuse.org/Template:Article [5] http://wiki.opensuse.org/User:Puzel/Test
Petr
-- Petr Uzel, openSUSE Boosters Team IRC: ptr_uzl @ freenode
-- Regards Rajko, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Rajko M.
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:05:27 Petr Uzel wrote:
Hi, I've spent some time working on documenting the templates in wiki.o.o as suggested in [1], so here is small report and some random thoughts:
1. Every template (except a few - more on this below) in wiki.o.o instance now has its /doc subpage with information about how to use the template (code), general description, where to use it/not to use it and in some cases there is also list of related templates. The documentation could definitely not perfect, but IMHO it is a good start to having general policy that every template should be documented.
NavBar is one too many :) The name violates convention not to use CamelCase and keeping exceptions to the accepted rules at minimum is one way to help new editors. One thing lesser to remember when they start for the first time.
1. Not sure what you mean here, as Navbar template is available at http://wiki.opensuse.org/Template:Navbar
[...]
2, 3. Fully agree with Rajko.
4. TOCRight template: do we really need this? In en.o.o, only a few pages use this template and IMHO it doesn't look very nice.
It also doesn't play nice with the rest of the page. We usually use tables to limit size of the Table of content (TOC).
4. TocRight is deprecated. Don't know how it landed in wiki.o.o... I have been fighting against this template for months now :] also, if we intend to assure a consistent look'n'feel, there are no real reasosn to limit the size of the TOC imho.
5. The templates related to portals were taken from wikipedia, where these templates are also perfectly documented. IMO it would be useless to copy their documentation to wiki.o.o, so I've basically just linked the documentation to our wiki.
That is good if we update templates with Wikipedia, but if we will keep them as they are, then copy is probably better option. This is valid for anything that we use from other sources, but so far I know we still don't have this written as policy.
5. We should use up2date templates from wikipedia (for maintenance purpose), so I guess that a link to WP doc is sufficient (... if we manage to stay update :) ).
[...]
6, 7. Good job.
8. ATM, the documentation of a template is displayed below the template content, which is fine for small templates like AI [3], but isn't so fine for bigger templates like Article boilerplate [4]. If the user opens [4], the documentation should be better visible. I see two options, none of them ideal: a) put the documentation above the template content b) make the template content <includeonly>, so only the documentation would be visible, but then it couldn't be used as an example of recommended article layout. Any ideas?
We have to address this more thoroughly. Current article template is: 1) meant for only one type of article, user help; we have other topics that may not need this kind of template, or need different type; 2) it is all in one: template, help and sample layout; we have to break this in pieces to make it easier to use.
To skip explanation, I'll try to come up with some illustration what I mean.
8. Waiting for Rajko proposal.. 9. Allright, good job Petr and Rajko! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 25 February 2010 06:44:10 Rémy Marquis wrote: ...
4. TocRight is deprecated. Don't know how it landed in wiki.o.o... I have been fighting against this template for months now :]
Fight is over :)
also, if we intend to assure a consistent look'n'feel, there are no real reasosn to limit the size of the TOC imho.
Look and feel can be different for different types of articles, or namespaces. I'm sure that TOC should be reduced in size to what is actually used by titles if we want to use category tree that needs some space. ...
5. We should use up2date templates from wikipedia (for maintenance purpose), so I guess that a link to WP doc is sufficient (... if we manage to stay update :) ).
That is bound to MediaWiki software. Wikipedia is running on the latest MediaWiki with certain number of extensions that is not the same as ours, so IMHO, we should keep docs that describe what we have. ...
To skip explanation, I'll try to come up with some illustration what I mean.
8. Waiting for Rajko proposal..
Still pending :) (ETA is this weekend) -- Regards Rajko, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
Hi, On 02/25/2010 01:44 PM, Rémy Marquis wrote:
We should use up2date templates from wikipedia (for maintenance purpose), so I guess that a link to WP doc is sufficient (... if we manage to stay update :) ).
I simplified a lot of the wikipedia portal and supporting templates. For instance i got rid of the 3 way redirection for the boxes, i standardized layout/formating and so on. So we already use modified versions of the templates. They also do not change heavily on wikipedia. Most of the stuff is from 2006 so i see no problem here. Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, openSUSE. Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 07:16:32PM -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:05:27 Petr Uzel wrote:
1. Every template (except a few - more on this below) in wiki.o.o instance now has its /doc subpage with information about how to use the template (code), general description, where to use it/not to use it and in some cases there is also list of related templates. The documentation could definitely not perfect, but IMHO it is a good start to having general policy that every template should be documented.
NavBar is one too many :) The name violates convention not to use CamelCase and keeping exceptions to the accepted rules at minimum is one way to help new editors. One thing lesser to remember when they start for the first time.
I agree with you on keeping the number of exceptions as low as possible. But I don't get the point with NavBar - this was already renamed to 'Nav bar' a week ago. But there was TemplateNav, which I've just renamed to 'Template nav'.
2. It seems nobody has objections against making it policy that every $template has to be documented in $template/doc, so I'll mention it in [2] (this is yet to be done if nobody raises objections).
Yes, it should go in template creation rules/conventions.
OK, I will update it.
3. The exceptions for which I did not make /doc subpage, as mentioned in point 1, are: Template:App \ Template:Appg | Template:Appk +-> I don't understand what are these good for Template:Appj /
IMHO, they useless. It is yet another new wiki editor trying to save typing using templates.
I'll delete them. [...]
Template:Meeting - marked as 'template to rethink', looks useless to me
Interesting is how it landed on new wiki. In old wiki it was used until February 2009. It doesn't bring anything that you can't find on meeting pages. My vote is to get rid of it now.
Will do.
Template:Infobox software, Template:Information: these two templates look very similar, I don't get the difference. Are both really needed? That is one of duplicate templates that should be fixed on old wiki, but it was transferred during initial experiments with new wiki as part of Category:Education.
"Infobox software" is to some extent good name/title, at least it is common on Wikipedia.
Without knowing some context or looking into the template, I would have no clue what such template might be used for.
"Information" is good only for disambiguation page, or in Template namespace as name of template that is base for other templates.
IMO, merge both to "Infobox software", and remove category Education form the template.
But this will break pages that use these templates after they are moved from en.o.o, right? Is fixing 'incompatibilities with changed templates' part of the transition plan?
4. TOCRight template: do we really need this? In en.o.o, only a few pages use this template and IMHO it doesn't look very nice.
It also doesn't play nice with the rest of the page. We usually use tables to limit size of the Table of content (TOC).
So drop it?
5. The templates related to portals were taken from wikipedia, where these templates are also perfectly documented. IMO it would be useless to copy their documentation to wiki.o.o, so I've basically just linked the documentation to our wiki.
That is good if we update templates with Wikipedia, but if we will keep them as they are, then copy is probably better option. This is valid for anything that we use from other sources, but so far I know we still don't have this written as policy.
Henne, you ported these templates. Would you prefer to do the documentation yourself?
6. There are several navigation bar templates in the wiki. I think these templates might be placed into something like [[Category:NavBars]], so it would be easier to find proper Navbar when creating new article. Wikipedia uses something similar. What do you think?
+1 Besides we can use full name for category so that reader can see what it is about without reading description, like you already used for: http://wiki.opensuse.org/Category:Template_documentation sub Category:Navigational templates sub Category:Navigational bars
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean here. Could you please elaborate on this a bit? [...]
8. ATM, the documentation of a template is displayed below the template content, which is fine for small templates like AI [3], but isn't so fine for bigger templates like Article boilerplate [4]. If the user opens [4], the documentation should be better visible. I see two options, none of them ideal: a) put the documentation above the template content b) make the template content <includeonly>, so only the documentation would be visible, but then it couldn't be used as an example of recommended article layout. Any ideas?
We have to address this more thoroughly. Current article template is: 1) meant for only one type of article, user help; we have other topics that may not need this kind of template, or need different type; 2) it is all in one: template, help and sample layout; we have to break this in pieces to make it easier to use.
I agree that more specialized boilerplates would be nice. Regarding documentaion of boilerplates, Henne pointed out that it can not be documented using <noinclude>{{{{PAGENAME}}/doc}}</noinclude>, because this gets substituted to newly created article (I thought noinclude works for substitution as well). I don't know if this can be worked around (and if it is actually desired). For this reason, I've removed that snippets from the three boilerplates. Feel free to delete [Template:Article/doc] and the two others if you think it's not useful anymore.
9. Template:{Torrent, Video} These two templates were implemented using titled-click-external template, which a) isn't in wiki.o.o b) is deprecated according to Wikipedia So I've reworked Video and Torrent templates using [[image:Video.png|22px|link={{{1}}}]] syntax. It should work the same way as before except that it now adds another icon representing external link [5]. [...] I deleted the rest of templates that used depreciated "Titled click" template, those 2 somehow survived. With new format for File (Image) anyone can add any link to any image, so workaround templates based on "Titled click" are not needed anymore.
Yes, anyone can use [Image:foo|link=bar], but using {{Video|http://link.to.avi}} looks simpler to me.
Do we have any other use case for such templates?
The use cases in e.g. http://en.opensuse.org/FOSDEM2008 are sane IMHO. Petr -- Petr Uzel, openSUSE Boosters Team IRC: ptr_uzl @ freenode
I will assist where possible. I have had something like a stroke and it
limits what I am able to do. I randomly jump through all the symtoms or
any mix from 1 or 2, any number of them or all at once. So what I am able
to do is a bit limited.
--
Boyd Gerber
On Thursday 25 February 2010 07:48:38 Petr Uzel wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 07:16:32PM -0600, Rajko M. wrote: ... But I don't get the point with NavBar - this was already renamed to 'Nav bar' a week ago. But there was TemplateNav, which I've just renamed to 'Template nav'.
My bad, somehow fact that is was renamed and I have seen that, was lost for a moment I was writing above. ...
Template:Infobox software, Template:Information: these two templates look very similar, I don't get the difference. Are both really needed? ... Without knowing some context or looking into the template, I would have no clue what such template might be used for.
Giving digest of the most important information about software/package. Used in software review pages, could be used when listing software that is used to perform certain task, but as a lot has changed since template was created, for instance we have 1 click install and software search, it is good candidate for update/rewrite. Basically we can use only ideas in both templates to write new one named "Template:Infobox software". ...
IMO, merge both to "Infobox software", and remove category Education form the template.
But this will break pages that use these templates after they are moved from en.o.o, right? Is fixing 'incompatibilities with changed templates' part of the transition plan?
Yes, but we don't want to loose connection, so after merge, "Information" should be redirect to "Infobox software", so that we have reference what to fix; Education articles that used "Information". Now digression: There is 2 ways to fix links that are changed. 1) Look in http://wiki.opensuse.org/Special:WantedPages (that already has 265 wanted pages :) and create, move, or copy, pages from en.o.o. 2) When we rename article, leave old title that is now redirect, and look in http://wiki.opensuse.org/Special:ListRedirects and fix pages to use new name instead of redirect. Note: We should not simply remove all redirects, as they can be included in third party web pages and removing them will create dead links, which is not very popular on the web. We can do that only for pages that are not visited very often which is visible in the http://wiki.opensuse.org/Special:PopularPages , or have title that has to be changed anyway, so chance that something will be broken is not very high, or if it is, no one will cry.
4. TOCRight template: do we really need this? In en.o.o, only a few pages use this template and IMHO it doesn't look very nice.
It also doesn't play nice with the rest of the page. We usually use tables to limit size of the Table of content (TOC).
So drop it?
Yes and done :) If in any future we need it again, it is not really deleted, it can be restored by any admin, and so far I know any user that creates page with the same name and then play with a history a bit. ...
6. There are several navigation bar templates in the wiki. I think these templates might be placed into something like [[Category:NavBars]], so it would be easier to find proper Navbar when creating new article. Wikipedia uses something similar. What do you think?
+1 Besides we can use full name for category so that reader can see what it is about without reading description, like you already used for: http://wiki.opensuse.org/Category:Template_documentation sub Category:Navigational templates sub Category:Navigational bars
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean here. Could you please elaborate on this a bit?
Instead of "Category:Nav bars" we can use "Category:Navigational bars". It has title that will not confuse users, like "Nav bar" can do. The sub prefix is just to tell that it is subcategory of "Category:Navigational templates", which is subcategory of "Category:Templates". You used "Category:Template_documentation" instead of "Category:Template_doc" , which is good example how to make title that explains all that one want to know when browsing categories. The abbreviation doc is still well known, but nav is not, and there are many similar well known abbreviations in Linux, but not elsewhere that can confuse wiki visitors ...
Petr
-- Regards Rajko, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
Hi, On 02/26/2010 03:27 AM, Rajko M. wrote:
We should not simply remove all redirects, as they can be included in third party web pages and removing them will create dead links, which is not very popular on the web.
This is something i disagree with. We are starting a new instance of a wiki, even with a new URL. I don't think that we need to be backward-compatible to the mess in en.o.o. Redirects also make people lazily use their old cruft on the new instance, i want to avoid this wherever possible. I want the new instance to be as "clean" as possible before we point the general public to it, so we have a chance to keep up with changes they do. Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, openSUSE. Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 26 February 2010 03:39:47 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Hi,
On 02/26/2010 03:27 AM, Rajko M. wrote:
We should not simply remove all redirects, as they can be included in third party web pages and removing them will create dead links, which is not very popular on the web.
This is something i disagree with. We are starting a new instance of a wiki, even with a new URL. I don't think that we need to be backward-compatible to the mess in en.o.o.
Title change, even adjustment of letter case will break links in mail archives, forums etc, so not that we will mess third party links, but also our links between our services. In case that we will keep wiki.o.o as main documentation wiki server, and leave en.o.o for the rest of collaboration efforts then we will not break anything, but we should leave http://en.opensuse.org/Template:TransferNote on en.o.o, so that people that are following old links can find pages. Although if we decide to go that way template has to be changed.
Redirects also make people lazily use their old cruft on the new instance, i want to avoid this wherever possible.
I talk about wiki redirect pages that can't link between servers, so old cruft will stay where it is now, or it will be updated and transferred manually.
I want the new instance to be as "clean" as possible before we point the general public to it, so we have a chance to keep up with changes they do.
Metoo :)
Henne
-- Regards Rajko, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:27:35PM -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
On Thursday 25 February 2010 07:48:38 Petr Uzel wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 07:16:32PM -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
6. There are several navigation bar templates in the wiki. I think these templates might be placed into something like [[Category:NavBars]], so it would be easier to find proper Navbar when creating new article. Wikipedia uses something similar. What do you think?
+1 Besides we can use full name for category so that reader can see what it is about without reading description, like you already used for: http://wiki.opensuse.org/Category:Template_documentation sub Category:Navigational templates sub Category:Navigational bars
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean here. Could you please elaborate on this a bit?
Instead of "Category:Nav bars" we can use "Category:Navigational bars". It has title that will not confuse users, like "Nav bar" can do.
The sub prefix is just to tell that it is subcategory of "Category:Navigational templates", which is subcategory of "Category:Templates". You used "Category:Template_documentation" instead of "Category:Template_doc" , which is good example how to make title that explains all that one want to know when browsing categories. The abbreviation doc is still well known, but nav is not, and there are many similar well known abbreviations in Linux, but not elsewhere that can confuse wiki visitors
Hi, I've created Category:Navigational_bars that contains following pages: Template:News nav Template:Portal nav Template:Software portal nav Template:Socnet nav Template:Template nav Template:Wiki guidelines nav Template:Wireless nav Category:Navigational_bars is subcategory of Category:Navigational_templates, which ATM contains only Template:Navbar. Rajko, you mentioned Category:Templates, which does not exist yet. Do you think we should create this category and then organize all templates into subcategories of this Category? It sounds like a good idea IMHO, but I'd like to be sure I got your point right before working on it. Next, there are templates Education_content and Buildservice_content. Two questions/points: 1) do we want these vertical navboxes in the wiki.o.o as an alternative to horizontal navbars? [1] does not look very nice (at least in my FF)... 2) if we want to keep them, I'd suggest to rename them to Template:{Buildservice,Educational}_navbox, put into Category:Navigational_navboxes. Then, it would make sense also to rename Template:*_nav to Template:*_navbar. Comments? Thanks. [1] http://wiki.opensuse.org/Category:Education Petr -- Petr Uzel, openSUSE Boosters Team IRC: ptr_uzl @ freenode
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 06:16:57 Petr Uzel wrote: ...
Hi,
I've created Category:Navigational_bars that contains following pages: Template:News nav Template:Portal nav Template:Software portal nav Template:Socnet nav Template:Template nav Template:Wiki guidelines nav Template:Wireless nav
Category:Navigational_bars is subcategory of Category:Navigational_templates, which ATM contains only Template:Navbar.
Thanks Petr.
Rajko, you mentioned Category:Templates, which does not exist yet. Do you think we should create this category and then organize all templates into subcategories of this Category? It sounds like a good idea IMHO, but I'd like to be sure I got your point right before working on it.
It is good idea. We can have either indexes, or categories, and I prefer categories. As long as we keep up with new articles and add categories, all will be fine. Problem with old wiki was that categorization begun after there was already more then a thousand articles, and there was no enough people to sort all things out and keep up with new ones. As I'm just starting to read about Semantic MediaWiki extension, that could be seen as extension of category functionality, I have no idea about better way then to use built in categories.
Next, there are templates Education_content and Buildservice_content. Two questions/points: 1) do we want these vertical navboxes in the wiki.o.o as an alternative to horizontal navbars? [1] does not look very nice (at least in my FF)...
Nor in mine :) Vertical boxes that one has to maintain manually are not competitor to CategoryTree (another reason to use categories). They can be marked for removal, but as they are part of some articles, we should use procedure like with Sablon:PointHere in en.o.o. Add message that is depreciated and remove/replace it on a first occasion. I see use for (yet) another template, or templates, {{depreciated|use_instead="this"}} or some more verbose name, that will make unified look of message in all items that are depreciated (template, article, procedure,...). Part of doc can be instruction when to use that template.
2) if we want to keep them, I'd suggest to rename them to Template:{Buildservice,Educational}_navbox, put into Category:Navigational_navboxes. Then, it would make sense also to rename Template:*_nav to Template:*_navbar.
The renaming to *_navbar is good idea anyway. It will establish clear connection between parent and children template. Probably not that important to casual wiki editor as it is to wiki maintainers that will have to remember a lot of things.
Petr
-- Regards Rajko, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 10:28:14PM -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 06:16:57 Petr Uzel wrote:
2) if we want to keep them, I'd suggest to rename them to Template:{Buildservice,Educational}_navbox, put into Category:Navigational_navboxes. Then, it would make sense also to rename Template:*_nav to Template:*_navbar.
The renaming to *_navbar is good idea anyway. It will establish clear connection between parent and children template. Probably not that important to casual wiki editor as it is to wiki maintainers that will have to remember a lot of things.
Done. Petr -- Petr Uzel, openSUSE Boosters Team IRC: ptr_uzl @ freenode
Hey, On 02/24/2010 07:05 PM, Petr Uzel wrote:
5. The templates related to portals were taken from wikipedia, where these templates are also perfectly documented. IMO it would be useless to copy their documentation to wiki.o.o, so I've basically just linked the documentation to our wiki.
As we target the documentation to people who want to use those templates we should just point them to Help:Portal. There is no need to mess with Template:Random portal component with nominate, Template:Rand or the like.
8. ATM, the documentation of a template is displayed below the template content, which is fine for small templates like AI [3], but isn't so fine for bigger templates like Article boilerplate [4]. If the user opens [4], the documentation should be better visible. I see two options, none of them ideal: a) put the documentation above the template content b) make the template content <includeonly>, so only the documentation would be visible, but then it couldn't be used as an example of recommended article layout. Any ideas?
I'm for the includeonly method. We can point people to real articles with real content as examples. The make better ones anyway.
9. Template:{Torrent, Video} These two templates were implemented using titled-click-external template, which a) isn't in wiki.o.o b) is deprecated according to Wikipedia So I've reworked Video and Torrent templates using [[image:Video.png|22px|link={{{1}}}]] syntax. It should work the same way as before except that it now adds another icon representing external link [5]. I don't know how to get rid of this icon (does it mind actually??), so if ((this is not desired && can not be fixed) || (there are some other drawbacks I didn't notice)), then please revert these two templates back.
Its rather easy. Put it in a class plainlinks. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Plainlinks Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, openSUSE. Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-wiki+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:18:29AM +0100, Henne Vogelsang wrote: [...]
9. Template:{Torrent, Video} These two templates were implemented using titled-click-external template, which a) isn't in wiki.o.o b) is deprecated according to Wikipedia So I've reworked Video and Torrent templates using [[image:Video.png|22px|link={{{1}}}]] syntax. It should work the same way as before except that it now adds another icon representing external link [5]. I don't know how to get rid of this icon (does it mind actually??), so if ((this is not desired && can not be fixed) || (there are some other drawbacks I didn't notice)), then please revert these two templates back.
Its rather easy. Put it in a class plainlinks.
Thanks Henne, that works perfectly. Video and Torrent templates adjusted. Petr -- Petr Uzel, openSUSE Boosters Team IRC: ptr_uzl @ freenode
participants (5)
-
Boyd Lynn Gerber -
Henne Vogelsang -
Petr Uzel -
Rajko M. -
Rémy Marquis