WikiIndex talk:Add a Wiki

wikis, wiki people and wiki ideas
Revision as of 09:59, 19 March 2012 by 81.102.15.200 (Talk)

Jump to: navigation, search

Table of contents

Tags

John, I spoke with Ray and we both agree that the tags are a definate step in the right direction, I am hoping that we can figure out what we need to do to make the tag functional within the description text. Until then, I guess we place the things underneath the header/footer.

  • that was the problem, trying to make it a header, so I have just bolded it, it works now as a footer. What do you think?

Best, MarkDilley

wiki_recentchanges

In order to have a clean, uniform look in the StructuredData template, wiki_recentchanges needs to be set to "no" if there is not a RecentChanges in the wiki. Words other than "no" show up ugly and distracting.

Could we rename wiki_recentchanges to something like recent_changes_URL to emphasize that we *want* the actual URL there, not merely the word "yes" ? --DavidCary 14:38, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
Need to add it to the SysOp's task list. Need to find or create that. Best, MarkDilley | talk

If not all information available

Can one add a wiki with blanks in several places? I'm thinking of copying a few hundred profiles from wiki4all.com and leaving the "owners" of the wikis (or some other enthusiast) to fill in the blanks from their own knowledge rather than do the research myself. robinp 14:20, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

I'd recommend using "Unknown" instead of blank. That way, those pages will show up in Category:Unknown for further research, if the owners don't do it themselves. TedErnst | talk 15:36, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
Should we pre-fill the template on this page with the word "Unknown" ?

If we do that we will lose the category/tag place holders there, not sure which would be more useful.

Right now it has Active instead of Status and OpenEdit instead of EditMode. Changing those would be a step in the right direction. Would then be easier to find the new ones without that info. What I mean is, if we're going to keep the placeholders, let's go all the way. Or go the other way to Unknown. I like the placeholders. TedErnst | talk 16:36, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
Agreed MarkDilley | talk

The pages that discuss an individual wiki, also display that wiki's logo. There are 2 possible ways of displaying that wiki's logo. (The logo looks identical in the normal "read" view, no matter which way we do it. It is only visible in the "editbox").

I've seen both ways used here:

  • Link directly to that wiki's logo, using the full URI of its location on that wiki.
    • Quicker, for the people putting new wiki into the wikiindex, to copy and past the URI to the image file, than to upload and download files (then delete that temporary file).
    • If someone finds the wiki *here*, then visits that wiki, the logo is only downloaded once (from that wiki) and stored in cache. (Rather than downloaded once from wikiindex.com and once again from that wiki).
    • once and only once
    • PersonalTelcoWiki does it this way
  • Download the image from that wiki, then upload that image to the WikiIndex, then refer to the wikiindex version of that image with double-brackets.
    • reduces load on that distant wiki, in the case where I look at the description here, and then decide not to visit that wiki after all.
    • faster response if I and WikiIndex are on the same continent, but that other wiki is on some other continent.
    • BradfordCompski does it this way
    • The "Add a Wiki" page currently seems to be saying this (download-upload) is the "proper" way to display each wiki's logo.

Which is really the best method?

Have we already discussed this elsewhere, and come to a consensus about the Right Way to Do It? Or should we just start talking about it here? --DavidCary 21:37, 30 Apr 2006 (EDT)

I've always thought that downloading the image was the more sure fire way to get it, given that you have more control over the size and shape, etc. But linking has the advantage that if their logo changes, we get the change also. Some logos have strange shapes and clipping a piece of the logo makes more sense. So I'd say either method is fine, whatever produces the best result visually. I'm sure there are some advantages to consistency, but not sure we can achieve 100% consistency unless we only download. Thoughts? --Raymond King | talk 02:30, 1 May 2006 (EDT)
Lately, I've been linking to the image as this is less labor-intensive than uploading a copy to WikiIndex. But, as you say, there are times when the image is too unwieldy to fit in an infobox, so in those cases, I upload a copy. I don't recall seeing a discussion of which is the "Right Way". --MarvelZuvembie 21:39, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

getting the logo from wiki based on mediawiki

With many wikiengines, you can hit "File" | "Save page as" to snag a copy of the logo, or do "View" | "Page Source..." to find the exact URL of the logo.

However, some wiki based on the mediawiki engine make it difficult to access the logo and put it on wikiindex. When I try to to do "File" | "Save page as", I get some sort of "print version" of the page that doesn't include the logo. When I check the source code, it doesn't mention the logo anywhere. Apparently it is included by reference in one of the several CSS stylesheets referenced by the page.

What's the trick for grabbing that logo and putting it into the wikiindex entry for that wiki? --70.189.73.224 23:25, 16 September 2006 (EDT)

I suppose you could take a screenshot of it. — User:Sean Fennel@ 23:40, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
An even easier trick is described at WikiProject:Logos. --DavidCary 14:14, 21 January 2009 (EST)

More details on template needed

It would be helpful if there was more information on this page to help new users complete the template.

I got stuck on WikiSize - what does this mean? Is it the number of pages? In the main namespace only? I only have about 20 pages now, but do I need to come and edit this regularly as I grow? I also didn't know what a WikiNode was, although at least I was able to find out reasonably quickly by searching the site.

A blow-by-blow idiot's guide would be useful, and not too long or difficult to write, including links to pages showing options (e.g. Special:Categories).

Thanks Visctrix 15:56, 6 March 2007 (PST)

WikiSize should look something like MoreThanNumber (or LessThan10 for very small wikis), where number should begin with 1, 2 or 5, and the rest should be zeroes. For example, a wiki with 3296 articles is MoreThan2000, a wiki with 99 articles is MoreThan50, and a wiki with 4 articles is LessThan10. – Smiddle/TC 07:53, 7 March 2007 (PST)

Please help us write such a helpful guide -- is Template:Size the best place to put it where people will find it? I see pieces of information scattered across several pages, including WikiProject:By Size and Template:Size and and their respective talk pages. --DavidCary 09:32, 2 February 2009 (EST)

editmode

A wiki's editmode is a concept that WikiIndex seems to have made up, rather than something that is common knowledge. You need to add clear instructions on every page that mentions this (i.e. this page and the page with the wiki template.)

Specifically, people need to know what options they have and how to pick one. In fact, I think there should be more of a walk through tutorial, where a couple of real wikis are used to show people how to find out all the stats.

A run through would make it much easier for people to join in with WikiIndex, but even if that is not done instructions on what editmode are essential.

Maybe a link to Category:Wiki_Edit_Mode could be enough, but I would prefer to see a basic explanation of each stat and its variables, with a link to read more. David Shepheard 05:43, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

WikiIndex didn't invent the concept - MediaWiki and other wiki engines allow the wiki owner to configure who can and cannot edit the wiki. I've seen referred to as "user permissions" or "edit mode", but it's a common concept. It's just that it's transparent for wikis which allow anonymous users to edit. Still, your point that it needs to be better explained is well-taken. --MarvelZuvembie 17:45, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
Maybe the instructions here could be inserted into a template and then that template could be used for this project page or anywhere else it needs to go. --MarvelZuvembie 17:49, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
OK, I stand corrected. But some other people might not know what it means. Anyhoo, as you say, my point is made (even if I am technically correct).
Good idea about moving stuff to this project page. I actually think that this line in 'Step 4' needs to be improved:
Enter the appropriate info for your wiki. All the appropriate categories are listed on the Wiki Index page of this wiki'
Firstly I don't see all' the categories on the index page and secondly, it would be better to walk people through with lines like: Replace 'YourWikiHttp' with the URL of the wiki you are adding.
Actually, I wonder if people should be told by this project to copy and past text that says: 'YourWikiEditMode' when the line could read 'UnknownEditMode' from word go. There could then be a line in the instructions that says something like: If you know the EditMode of the wiki, change it from 'UnknownEditMode' to an appropriate edit mode from the 'Category:Wiki_Edit_Mode' page.

Some stuff like that could keep things brief, but have plenty of links over to other pages that give all the possible options for each attribute in the template. David Shepheard 18:19, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

I agree that the abstract concept is pretty common -- most WikiEngines have several options to make editing easier or more restricted. But today I searched mediawiki.org and am surprised to find that "editmode" and "edit mode" never refer to this concept, but always refer to "the mode a person is in after he hits the "edit" button and before hit hits Save or Cancel.".
In their way, the people at mediawiki.org allude to the concept [1][2].
But I don't see that they use any other particular name, either, for what we've been calling "EditMode".
Is there a better name than "EditMode" for this concept?
--DavidCary 01:50, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
We could call it something more descriptive, like "WhoCanEdit" or "WhoIsAllowedToEdit". Even then, the "acceptable" answers, i.e., the ones for which we have created categories, are not intuitive. I suspect that visiting sites, especially Wikias, are likely to say "Anyone can edit". --MarvelZuvembie 15:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

I must admit to liking EditMode - and I understand the issue though. How about a descriptive name like EditPrivileges or EditRights? Best, MarkDilley

Wikia boilerplate

I set up a boilerplate template for Wikia information: {{Wikia Boilerplate}}. Some of the information may be different for the various Wikias (not all are OpenEdit, and definitely not all are English language), but it is helpful for me (and hopefully you) to cut-and-paste this info rather than typing it out each time. --MarvelZuvembie 21:40, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Wikisage

No page for this. Mainly in Dutch, so needs someone who speaks it to do a page. 02:59, 19 March 2012 (PDT)