Help:Ask a wiki question/Archive3

WIKI Software

I am so impressed with the usefullness of this wiki, I am trying to get my work supervisor to implement our own WIKI as a colaboration tool at work. What WIKI software is this? And where/how can I get it? LeFick 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mediawiki.org afaik. - Y0_ich_halt 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This version to be specific. --Xeeron 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, as the "Powered by Mediawiki" icon in the lower right-hand corner indicates, that's what this wiki is running. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It cost money?--§ Eloc § 18:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually installed it for the company I work for as a project management app... works AMAZINGly if someone spends the time to organize and make templates. -elviondale (tahlk) 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoted from the homepage as linked above: "MediaWiki is a free software wiki package originally written for Wikipedia.". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've just seen alot of links for wiki sofware which costs money.--§ Eloc § 23:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Throw in some good common adSense and it pays you. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't follow the link.--§ Eloc §

(Reset indent) Then search for Google Adsense. I make a few bucks a day off of it. Pays for all my hosting and domains too. -elviondale (tahlk) 05:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ads would probably be a bad idea if it's an internal business wiki. -- Gordon Ecker 06:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but not if its a service you provide. The underlying issue is rather that I host it, provide support for it, and am compensated for such. The ads are part of the accepted terms. -elviondale (tahlk) 06:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if it's an internal business wiki, the cost is most likely not an issue - MediaWiki can pretty much be tossed on a spare box that's on the network, since it's not going to be generating very much of a load. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Working for a publicly held company as I do, we have to have a very good excuse to justify anything over $5.00 That's actually the limit to office spending, before the corporate head office has to approve a purchase requisition. Its sad really, but Media WIKI is free. Linux is free. mySQL is free, and so are the other support programs it requires. That is such a huge plus around here. LeFick 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

LAMP ftw -elviondale (tahlk) 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I forwarded that link to the gurus I have working on a demo wiki to impress the boss. Meanwhile, mentioned above about ads, personally, I hate them. Thats why I defected from the other wiki and came here. LeFick 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a clear difference between a nicely placed 200x200 that nets you a few bucks per day and ad banner spam on the top, bottom, left, and right. Ugh. -elviondale (tahlk) 16:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Runners or characters that run you to an unknown part of the map

← moved to Help:Ask a game question

Guild Page

I'm interested in making my guild a page on here but im not sure how. How do you? I know this will be answered fast :)

The easier way to know where is to follow the in-game link for your guild (press f10 and click on your guild's name on the wiki links). As for how, you have to follow the guild's guideline at:guild (talk). --Fighterdoken 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit in Progress

Recently I asked another member about the posibility of using a new template tag on an article page that would flag the page as an edit that is actively in progress. He recommended I check the policy pages, and I didn't find anything decisive either way. Has this been done before? Is there a policy that would prevent it?

The idea is a template a lot like the screenshot template that could be placed at the top of a page. It would indicate the name of the person making the edit, and the expected completeion date, either a few hours, or a couple days(?) from the start of the edit. I have created/edited a few pages lately, gone to the game for the screenshot, or been otherwise distracted, and returned to find I was either already edited again, (edit conflict), or reverted as vandalizm. If someone places:

• Edit in progress username; experation: date/time

Please alow the experation to run out before altering this article.

-or something like that.

If another reader wants, they can comment on the usernames talk page, or if the experation has passed, then it can be removed by the next person to see it. This is just an idea by a noob editor. I would gladly accept comments LeFick 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The moral of the story is, save your edits before you go afk. I don't particularly like this idea as the only places it would be useful is on high visibility pages, like events whilst they are happening, in which case I don't like the idea of one editor having his own way for as long as he likes to make edits preventing all other users from doing so. --Lemming 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What made me think if it is actually while working on lesser pages. What I have noticed is that there are a number of folk who monitor the recent changes pages, and rightly so looking vigilantly for vandals. However, it is in saving an edit that might not be completely ready for prime time because you have to go AFK that the tag would then alert the reader that an edit is in progess. It would then be up to the reader to decide to continue to edit, or wait. Its not a restriction at all. Just a notice that the current editor wasn't quite done, but should be soon. And certianly not as long as the editor wants either. If possible, the tag (if possible) would include a preset amount of time from the first time its placed, maybe not more than 3 hours. But long enough to fight your way to a particular BOSS or object for a screen shot, or while working up a list of quotes, etc. The reader still has the opertunity to determine if the edit is legitemate, or vandalizm. LeFick 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary at all. This is a wiki, you expect pages to be edited. You cannot restrict other users from editing simply because you want to continue and don't want others to "mess up" your work-in-progress. And even with such a tag, there's nothing to stop people from ignoring it. If you have an article that's unfinished because you suddenly have to do something else, there are three options you can take, pick one:

1. Stick a {{stub}} tag at the top or use of the more specific stubs.
2. Save it in your own user space somewhere and come back to it at a later date.
3. Abandon changes.

An article does not need to be in a finished state before other editors work on it. If you really want to finalise the overall flow of a long or detailed article before releasing it to main space, option 2 is the best way to go about it. -- ab.er.rant 01:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone comes along and messes up what you were working on, revert it back and continue where you were. Just leave a note so no one gets pissed off. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Or if you have to save a partial edit that you're planning to finish later, say so in the edit summary. That's what it's there for. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a template which says that someone is doing a major revision of the article and politely asks other editors to refrain from editing the article in order to avoid edit conflicts. -- Gordon Ecker 04:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's a major revision, say for a long article, I won't call it a problem either, more a inconvenience. But short articles? I just see it as unnecessary and unfriendly, no matter how polite you go about it. Yes, I suppose that if I saw such a message, I'll hold off editing it, but only for a short while. So a delay of a couple of hours or days is just detrimental. If a user holds off his own edit because of this "please don't edit for a short while" message, that user might probably not bother editing at all. On small or obscure pages, it causes an extra page save. On long pages, you're potentially preventing good contributions on parts of it. And finally, even if there's such a tag, there's no stopping other users from ignoring it and editing it anyway. So in the end, you still check to see if there's been an edit since the last version you looked at. The only useful situation I can see this is for pages that have a very high chance of more than one user attempting to rewrite it, and the probability for that is very low. It also feels like a minor protect on the page. And finally, just an extra note, such a tag needs to auto-disappear after the expiration time, as prevention to abuse and forgetfulness. -- ab.er.rant 05:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I really don't see many instances where it would be useful or even appropriate to add such a template to a page. In the rare occasion that for some reason it might be helpful, I'd be more inclined to say just use {{notice}}. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. Not necessary imo. Good idea, but there are provisions around already -elviondale (tahlk) 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, {{notice}} is sufficient, and I don't think there's any point in using a notice unless you're reworking an entire multi-page article or reformatting quickref lists. -- Gordon Ecker 05:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spirit's Gift

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Some problems going on with this page; the Wiki or Firefox seems to be replacing the ' with a _ which lead me to create the page accidentally, however even the What Links Here for the actual skill article leads to the same erroneous page. - 68.97.132.83 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here, I use firefox and have no problems with the article's name displaying, or linking. Could you demonstrate with a screenshot perhaps? --Lemming 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on the wiki link above, I am taken to [1]. The correct skill article is [2]. These are different pages. - 68.97.132.83 22:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the wiki link in the header for this section that takes me directly to the correct page, and not the redirect. --Lemming 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a problem from your part only. Spirit's Gift article existed already long ago, and when you tried to access the new article, somehow you ended in Spirit s Gift (maybe keyboard, language error or just a typo while you were writting). Spirit s Gift was redirected to the correct article shortly after you created it, and that may be why you are getting confused right now. Double check if you can do the ' character :) (i think firefox doesn't display it, but shows something like Spirit%27s instead of Spirit's in the browser path).
Now that i think about it, maybe your problem could be caused by trying to write the path with the full name (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Spirit's_Gift) instead of the browser-like name (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Spirit%27s_Gift) --Fighterdoken 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The incorrect article is not even showing up as the current redirect for me, but instead as the older version of the page. Spirit's Gift takes me to the wrong page. Spirit%27s Gift still doesn't take me to the correct page. This doesn't occur with Warmonger's Weapon etc. I initially created the new page by following the Spiritmaster skill reference link to a nonexistent page, and the link still directs me to the incorrect page. Also, both of the direct links you list above, Fighterdoken, go to the same page. - 68.97.132.83 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now it works... what the hell, this is bizarre. - 68.97.132.83 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It may have been just a problem with Firefox cache (any clue how to setup Firefox to autodetect changes on pages like IE does?). Oh, and by the way... how do we move this to Help:Ask_a_wiki_question :P --Fighterdoken 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved :) you use the {{moved}} template, and have to manually move the text yourself. --Lemming 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

code= 103 or code=021

← moved to Help:Ask a game question#code 103 or code 021

Spell(ing) Ckecker

Is there, in the WIKI, a way to do spell checking? Spell as in spelling, not casting. I should, but don't always take the time to copy my content to MS word, spell check it, and then paste it back. It would be much better if there was a way to spell check in place. LeFick 14:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Use Firefox? It has a spell checker built in. - HeWhoIsPale 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on the wiki, as far as I know, but FF does have the spell checker. The red lines get quite annoying when looking at the coding on the page, however. Calor - talk 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're using IE, you can install IESpell, and if you're using Opera, you can use Aspell. --Dirigible 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)