| Revision as of 16:01, 11 January 2006 editCrypticbot (talk | contribs)10,967 edits Automated archival of 2 sections older than 7 days from Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) and removal of 4 sections older than 14 days← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:42, 11 December 2014 edit undoSardanaphalus (talk | contribs)119,752 edits category | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The archives of ] may be viewed by looking through the edit history of this page, or by following the links on ]. | |||
| '''Village Pump - Archive''' | |||
| ] | |||
| '''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.''' | |||
| ] | |||
| Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These dicussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed. | |||
| Post replies at ], copying or summarizing the section you are | |||
| replying to if necessary. | |||
| '''Note:''' Please add new material at the ''bottom'' of the page. '''Preceded''' by the following: '''<nowiki> =Sections archived on ~~~~~ = </nowiki>''' | |||
| =Sections archived on 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)= | |||
| == Editing monobook.css == | |||
| <!-- moved from talk page on December 26. Should be archived a week after 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (ie, in three days) if no more replies are added. —] --> | |||
| How much does this file control? If I had the proper know how, could I, say, add new tabs to the top of the skin? ]<font size="1"> ] </font> 08:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Not with ] alone, but in combination with some ] in your <tt>monobook.js</tt>, you could. ] 08:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I specifically wish to do is to create a "edit article" and "edit talk" tab so that on any given article i am on i always have a tab for editing the main page and the talk page, so that i dont have to go "Talk -> article -> edit" | |||
| you know. saving me some time. | |||
| Would this require a lot of javascript / css knowledge? Please, don't do it for me, just tell me if its something that i can figure out how to do with a little digging. ]<font size="1"> ] </font> 11:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Yes you can add tabs to the top... I had it in my monbook at some point to add them on talk pages --<span class="plainlinks" style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">]</font>] ] </b></span> 15:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I put things that add to edit a users talk page in my --<span class="plainlinks" style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">]</font>] ] </b></span> 23:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : See ]. ] 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Renaming images? == | |||
| any way to quickly rename images or move them to a different name rather than the slow way of creating another image space and listing the old one for deletion? ] 06:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Not really. I think this has, at times, been done by bots, does anyone know details on that? -- ] | ] 07:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Is there any particular reason we don't have a "move image" feature though? Even though it would mean to manualy fix the image links afterwards (that could be done by a bot though) moving the image along with all it's revision history to a new name would be better than having to delete the old one and re-upload the image. If it's a security issue we could make it an admin only feature and do it though requested moves or something. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly...we already have a move function for articles...why not images? ] 07:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've tried doing it before, and surprisingly, Movepage will display Image:Whatever in the box, but then it will stop you from moving it to another page in the Image namespace. Perhaps it's an architectural problem? — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 15:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well the standard move feature won't work. You need to add some code to "physicaly" rename the image file(s) on the server as they are not stored in the actual database, and I suppose find a way to mark the move event in the file history and such. I suppose a server "hickup" in the middle of a move operation on a image with many revisions might cause some "icky" results too... --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 01:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ??? Entrys == | |||
| ???? appear evrywhere instead of english links in mediawiki specific context like on the search button. Language is set to english en in preferences and its the en wikipedia. so there seems to be a problem here. Problem noticed on this page: | |||
| ] ] 14:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It's fixed... everyone had it briefly, I think. ] | ] | 14:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I had this both here and on Commons for about 5 minutes yesterday. I got what looked like Korean characters rather than question marks though. ] 10:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image uploads== | |||
| Since the implementation of the copyright drop down box, I have noticed a considerable increase in the number of images incorrectly/deceptively tagged as some variant of free use. A more useful inclusion for the uploader to be forced to include would be source information - that way image copyright tags can be verified more simply. Would there be any possibility of including a field on the upload page that prompts the uploader to include image source information?--] 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No need to worry about images without sources - if they don't provide a source, after being asked, delete the images, no matter what the "license" tag claims. Simple as that. ] 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ]' diff link doesn't work in Classic skin == | |||
| The message itself is great, and works: you get a link to your talk page, but the diff link doesn't work at all. Instead, you get another link to your talk page. I'm going to go make a bugzilla report, but I figured I'd post here first in case someone had an idea about fizing it. ] ] 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I've listed the bug at ]. If anyone's had this happen to them or has any information on it, please post there. ] ] 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Fixed! Thanks to Brion and Rob Church for fixing it so quickly. ] ] 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == AOL user trying to create accounts == | |||
| We keep getting letters to the Help Desk mailing list from AOL users who are saying that when they try to create an account, they are told that they can't because they've already created 10 accounts. Is this new account counter keeping track of all AOL users? How often does it get reset, and is there something that can be done so AOL anons can create accounts without running into this problem? ]|] 17:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The whole problem is that AOL shares the same IP address for multiple users. Not only that but, from what I've heard, it changes the IP address with each request — but requests to the same page (by different users) often get the same IP address. That would make it look like the 10-account/day limit is being used for the whole AOL (when in fact it's per IP address). --] 20:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletedpage templates== | |||
| This is sort of a minor point, but one that bothers me a bit. Is there any way to make deleted articles that have been protected with the "deletedpage" template still appear as redlinks? The illusion created that there are articles under that name is a bit misleading, and throws me off when I'm looking for recreations of deleted pages. I know little about the technical issues of WP, and I suspect that if there is a way to do this it's too complicated for such a minor issue, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there anyway, and also see if anyone has similar feelings. -] 19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Set your stub limit to 20 bytes or so in preferences and add <code>a.stub { color:#CC2200; }</code> to your user css? —] ] 21:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::A general fix is certainly ''possible'', but would require a software change and would likely require a new option when deleting an article to disallow recreation. Feel free to enter this as an enhancement request at ], but don't be surprised if it is not acted on very soon. -- ] <small>(])</small> 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Errors == | |||
| Got a lot of errors now "Fatal error: Cannot instantiate non-existent class: outputpage in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Setup.php on line 284" <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Likely another quick configuration/coding error that slipped past the devs. OutputPage is instantiated for all requests, so it's not surprising that's the one that failed. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::"instantiate "? ]|] 03:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. --] 15:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Problem with old browsers?== | |||
| I've recently been editing from a 6 year old iMac running IE 5.1. Yes, I know it's ancient. It's a long and painful story as to why I'm not currently on my Tiger powered iBook G4, so don't ask. <br> | |||
| The problem I'm having occurs when trying to revert long articles. Most recently it occurred on ]. I think my browser might not be loading all the code into the edit window for some reason. Is having an old browser a possible cause? I know that there are special workarounds for it not being unicode compliant, but might there be other issues without workarounds? ] ] <small>]</small> ] 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :yep older browsers have problems editing longer articles. See ]. Just upgrade youyr browser (or edit only sections in long articles). ] ] 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :IE for Mac can't edit pages longer than 32kb correctly. If you have to use a machine too old to run Safari, try Firefox or a classic Mozilla release... --] 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the input. I just downloaded Mozilla 1.0.2, which is the most recent build that supports OS 9. I hope to be back up and running on my iBook tomorrow as it is due back from data recovery. <br>Warning: Fuming ahead...<small>Ignore it if you want, that's why it's in small type. Directories are wonderful things until they get deleted. Do not, I repeat ''do not'' use AppleCare's provided disk utility program called TechTool if you got AppleCare before upgrading to Tiger. It will crash your machine and erase your directory information. Apple of course maintains that it's third party software and that data loss, even data loss admittedly caused by them, is not covered under warranty. </small>''':-t''' <br>] ] <small>]</small> ] 11:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| =Sections archived on 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)= | |||
| == New Cite extension (now installed on Wikimedia) == | |||
| :''Note: This has now been installed on the cluster, happy hacking;)'' —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Following a ] I've written a followup to my ] extension, a and for it are avalible on my test wiki. | |||
| It basically adds sofware support for the <code><nowiki>{{ref|}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{note|}}</nowiki></code> hacks that are being used right now for citations, citations can be specified inline with it as <code><nowiki><ref>Some citation text here</ref></nowiki></code>, if you supply <code><nowiki>id</nowiki></code> you can reference it again as <code><nowiki><ref id/></nowiki></code>. There's no need for adding something like <code><nowiki>{{note|}}</nowiki></code> for each citation anymore because the citation section will be automatically generated on the page wherever the editors put <code><nowiki><references/></nowiki></code>. This improves workflow a lot because it's possible to edit an individual section adding <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> tags in it and it'll automatically be referenced in the section where <code><nowiki><references/></nowiki></code> is. The output of <code><nowiki><references/></nowiki></code> is completely customizable through the MediaWiki namespace so editors aren't bound by what I cooked up. | |||
| I'd like to get some comments on how it works (and should work), some things that need fixing currently are to make the prettier (need some styling, any ideas?) and most of all, make it work with my mortal enemy, ]. —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Way frickin' cool! Someone built a telepathy machine and figured out what I was hoping for regarding footnotes! Yes, please add this into the code, exactly as you've got it specified, so I can start using it yesterday! Really, that's exactly the way I had envisioned a proper references system working, I just didn't have time to put my thoughts down into a statement more coherent than . B-) ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 02:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I object to the abuse of XML-like syntax. It would be better to use <nowiki><ref name="id">...</ref></nowiki> and <nowiki><ref name="id"/></nowiki>. This is more similar to all other uses of XML-style tags on Misplaced Pages, and the use of "name" has a precedent on HTML forms (use of "id" as the attribute name would be confusing, since IDs are supposed to be used only once, while on HTML forms a "name" value is often used more than once). --] 02:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I agree with CesarB's objection, I found one part of the extension a bit difficult to understand: the automatic numbering of the list doesn't correspond to the actual citations. So you clicked number "6" and you get sent to number 5. I understand that the way the system is built to handle multiple citations, this must be done, but it is confusing. | |||
| ::While I haven't thought about it much, I might propose keeping all reusable refs the same number. But whatever you do, I think you keep the list number matching the reference number. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 02:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was a bit unsure about how to handle that, articles like ] currently use ''a b c d e f ...'' for that. That's a bit hard to handle in code though (remember that it has to handle every language out there), one way to do that would be to have a MediaWiki message with whitespace delimited tokens that should be used for that, .e.g "a b c d e f g h.." or "á a b é ..." depending on the language. Another way would be as you suggested to use the number of the actual reference, to do that properly however it couldn't use a HTML ordered list (<ol>), that's doable too, and that could easily be supported. —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The convention for backlinks became ''a b c...'' simply to have symbols which are different for many backlinks. I thought it would be awkward to use numbers for both downlinks and uplinks. Maybe PHP could emit other symbols, although having them memorably sequential is helpful for tasks such as clicking on each one while checking refs. (] 04:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)) | |||
| :::Yup... it seems the numbers of the links aren't that important to you. Love the idea though. Absolutely awesome actually. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 02:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I like the idea, but is this the 3rd or 4th footnoting system? Already putting urls in square brackets makes big numbers . Then <nowiki>{{ref| whatever</nowiki> makes little numbers. There's some other system I think that forces you to number the references explicitly. And now this. I like it, but please can we kill off the other systems? Also I agree about the faux-XML syntax. It would be nice if it could conform to wiki syntax, like being <<ref id|url>> or ((ref id|url)) or something. ] 02:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Discuss the multiple systems at the Talk page for ]. (] 04:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)) | |||
| ::Agree, I like the XML though, just use <code>name</code> instead of <code>id</code>. —] 02:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I chose to go with <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> rather than <code><nowiki><ref</nowiki></code> because it's quicker to type and there isn't a current need (and I can't imagine a need) for extra parameters, but even if extra parameters were to be added it would be easy to support them and the current system. Our extension paramters aren't XML anyway, not even close. —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 03:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would strongly suggest using <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code>. —] 03:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::They aren't XML, but they are XML-style. You'd be having one style (key=value) for almost everything, and another (naked value) just for <nowiki><ref></nowiki>. I can also easily imagine a lot of extra parameters: class=, style=, dir=, id= (to turn it into an anchor), etc. Supporting both key and value pairs and a naked value can quickly become confusing. I also think it's better to use <nowiki><ref ></nowiki> instead of <nowiki><ref ></nowiki> due to the common implied semantics of the id attribute. --] 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Some valid suggestions above (I especially agree with the need for the inline-number to match up with the down-below-number, one way or another, in all cases: otherwise printed output is essentially broken, since you can't figure out which note is for what) but I'm mostly going to say this: PLEASE HURRY! THIS IS GREAT! :-) (Sorry for the shouting.) Oh -- why not dump all the notes at the bottom of the page if a <nowiki><references/></nowiki> tag isn't present? That would make it even friendlier to learn. —] (]) 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :agreed. Despite it's learning curve (I figured it out in 2 minutes), it's better than what we have now. ] ] 02:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| There is very little in wikipedia where the code is XML-like and I'm not sure we want to encourage that. To borrow a page from Docuwiki, how about notation like ((footnote text)) and for repeated references ((name | footnote text)) with simply ((name)) being refered back to the defined footnote text. I realize such a configuration would be somewhat harder to write a parser for, but wiki code is meant to be as simple as possible on the writer, not the parser, right? Regardless an effective citation system would be a big step up for wikipedia. ] 03:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Because for a parser it introduces possible ambiguity. OTOH, XML is a standard, and it should be embraced. —] 03:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Another possibility is to use a template as an interface so the template syntax is used. <nowiki>{{ftemplate|text}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{ftemplate|name=Time3|text}}</nowiki> could be used, with the template emitting the XML-like wrapper. (] 04:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)) | |||
| | , Tidy completely messes up inline parser extensions for some reason and until that's fixed (or Tidy is disabled) it can't and will not be enabled on Wikimedia sites. I think tidy should be disabled anyway, it encourages sloppy and unportable syntax. It was disabled for a few days not so long ago and people whined to get it back;/ —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 03:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd like to help, but I fail to see any difference between these two links. --] 03:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::See these screenshots: , . —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 04:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW, Avar, your site is consistently giving unknown page format errors on IE for me and wants me to save your content to disk rather than view it. Netscape is well behaved though. Are others getting the same response? ] 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this is because the pages have no extensions, and so IE doesn't open them as html pages. I saved the spcs page to my hard disk, remnamed it to cite.html, and then (and only then) I could view it.] ] 03:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's probably because he's using ] with the application/xhtml+xml ], which older browsers do not understand. Using a more recent browser would fix the problem. --] 04:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, that's it, Internet Explorer doesn't support the for XHTML. —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 04:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Firefox also seems to be happy (not surprisingly). My IE can't get any more current, and so as someone who does web development, I am a little surprised you'd rely on a format not supported by 80+% of the web browsing audience. ] 04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::He's probably relying on the application/xhtml+xml MIME type because it forces the browser into a strict mode, where even the smallest misclosed tag will cause the whole page to fail to render with an ugly error message. Since it's a test site for his changes to the MediaWiki codebase, being more strict is useful. --] 13:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Exactly, keeps the code I write error free in that area. —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 13:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If the files have an HTML or an XHTML extension IE will open them. I'm not sure if it then obeys the strict mode or not, but I presume that the browsers which do support this MIME type will still support it even if the extension is present. ] ] 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Browsers do not use the file extension, unless the file comes from the local filesystem (i.e. a file: URI). They always use the MIME type supplied by the HTTP server. There are some obscure situations in which MSIE ignores the MIME type (thus breaking the specification) and tries to guess the file type, causing much grief to webmasters, but this is not one of them. So, what is happening is that, when you saved the page to your local filesystem, it lost its association to the application/xhtml+xml MIME type, and MSIE had to guess using the file extension (which being .html gives the text/html MIME type). --] 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Update: I solved the issues I was having with tidy, this might be enabled soon, brion seemed to like the idea. —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 04:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Another update: Brion did a review of it and we found some issues with it, in particular it would break the static HTML dumps. Also there were issues with using <nowiki><ref key></nowiki> (could only use keys) so I went for <nowiki><ref name=""></nowiki> as suggested above. Just as I was about to fix all this stuff, commit & deploy it my hard disk broke down, so I won't be able to do it until sometime after Christmas, hopefully. Currently doing a backup over 802.11b hoping it'll keep spinning (all my MW work is backed up though). —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 20:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry to hear about your hard disk problems, glad to see this is close to getting implemented though. Nice work. =) —] 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I managed to get it working anyway, it's now installed, merry winter-holiday-thing;) —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think it is working properly, the numbering is all wrong... See ]. I have converted to the new system, but the numbering is not correct. ] <small>] • ]</small> 23:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The numbering may be correct in the refs, but the numbering in the generated reference section do not match the inline citation numbers, specifically when you use <tt><nowiki><ref name=Myref /></nowiki><tt> to note an additional citatiion to a ref previously included. This problem is clearly visible in ] ] <small>] • ]</small> 00:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well that's because it wasn't designed to do that, i.e. not a bug. However people didn't like the way it was designed so I changed it, the numbers now line up perfectly. —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == CVU members list help needed with edit sections and .... == | |||
| <!-- moved from talk page on December 26. Should be archived a week after 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (ie, in three days) if no more replies are added. —] --> | |||
| ] show on ] had a problem where when there were numbers and sections for TOC and numbers were not reset editing a section did not have the text of that section. Because of this it was removed. People would like numbers back and edit sections working with text. Could someone fix this? | |||
| --<span class="plainlinks" style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">]</font>] ] </b></span> 12:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Is that page doing a lot of transcluding? Fancier transclusions (and meta transclusions, the evil things) are known to break section editing and a few other things. ] 19:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::That page was causing bugs before, we had the same problem on the stub sorting members list, and there are over 300 CVU's now, as everyone is categorized a current list and count is availble in the category listing, as suggested ], doesn't mean this can't have some repair, but it's a workaround. ] <sup>]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>]</sub> 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Cache tells me Access Denied? == | |||
| When I try to access Misplaced Pages, I get this error message: | |||
| : Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect. | |||
| : Your cache administrator is wikidown@bomis.com. | |||
| : Generated Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:06:27 GMT by bayle.wikimedia.org (squid/2.5.STABLE12) | |||
| The email address is apparently invalid, as emails bounce back. Can anyone point me in the right direction of the person to contact about the block? --] 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :if it persisits contact noc@wikimedia.org or #wikimedia-tech on freenode. if it just happens from time to time its probablly just poor handling of what happens when the system can't cope. ] 22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Another explanation is that this one is the message which appears when a "live mirror" is blocked (I've seen it before when checking these kinds of mirror). If so, it will not go away on its own; you should contact the developers. --] 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The live mirror message is different, and the developers are insidious enough to link to the actual page and do all the copyright stuff, except they don't give the actual article. I doubt it's a live mirror blocking issue. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 16:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == White space, but how much? == | |||
| I run several times a day each day into articles having too much whitespace between paragraphs, or at the top of the articles. Well, one may say that is no big deal. | |||
| I will argue however, that such whitespace makes the articles look unprofessional, especially that in some places the whitespace is wider than others (see above). And most of the time that whitespace is not created on purpose, rather by editor negligence. I have raised this issue before, but now I really want to ask a question: | |||
| :Does anybody know why the wiki engine does not strip extra whitespace when converting to html, like html itself and LaTeX do? Also, does anybody know why it is convenient to allow users to insert whitespace like that, and why not just use <nowiki><br></nowiki> when it is absolutely necessary? | |||
| In short, would it be a good idea to file it as a bug at that in future versions of the software the engine strip all the extra whitespace, while still allowing users to deliberately insert whitespace with <nowiki><br></nowiki>? ] (]) 05:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Never underestimate the hideous complexity of Parser.php. I see the definite alternative you proposed, so I say go for the Bugzilla and see what the developers think (eg. Don't expect results). — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 16:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::As to why whitespace is allowed, the wiki editing rules are meant to be extremely simple and not require any particular technical knowledge nor anything other than a text input box in a web browser to use. Knowledge of HTML or use of a ] word processor, in particular, are not assumed. Plain text is simply ''too'' plain for most people's tastes, so some markup syntax is supported including limited use of HTML. Allowing any markup immediately hits a feature creep slippery slope, but understanding the original intent hopefully helps fight the notion that wikimarkup might as well be an ]. The markup is intended to be directly edited by humans. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == User talk shortcut at image file history == | |||
| How to add the user_talk shortcut to image file history.<br> | |||
| For ex:<br> | |||
| (del) (cur) ] . . ] . . 182x71 (3396 bytes) ''(<nowiki>{{Logo}}</nowiki> AFGNIC logo (.af domain registrations: Afghanistan).)'' | |||
| into:<br> | |||
| (del) (cur) ] . . ] (]) . . 182x71 (3396 bytes) ''(<nowiki>{{Logo}}</nowiki> AFGNIC logo (.af domain registrations: Afghanistan).)'' | |||
| <br>--] <sup>(])</sup> 06:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Javascript I presume. Try ] — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 16:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::]. There's some not-so-good instructions for installation at ]. —] ] 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''MW now has this feature built in!''' Thanks to ] (see ]) | |||
| =Sections archived on 15:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)= | |||
| == MediaWiki 1.6 Release Date? == | |||
| Is there any estimated release date for the first beta release of MediaWiki 1.6? Thanks, ] 20:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want to use the same cutting edge software that runs Misplaced Pages, you can always check out the code from the CVS repository... — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 04:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Sometime Januaryish. --] 07:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == What happened to ''Create new page'' in searches? == | |||
| I'm sure there used to be a set of options that came with a search that didn't find exactly what was typed - in particular the option to create a new page. Why has this disappeared (or why can't I still see it...). -- ] 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you see this if you enter something in the search box and click "Go", rather than "Search" (I do). -- ] <small>(])</small> 23:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: "Search" doesn't offer a create new page option. As you suggest, "Go" does. There is also some other variant which I occasionally stumble across where there are half a dozen options listed - but I've no idea how I get there. -- ] 23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Red links == | |||
| I don't know where to ask this at, but what do the red links mean? {{unsigned|TenPoundHammer}} | |||
| :Red links are for pages that don't exist. They lead to an edit box, just like you get when you edit any other page, except it's blank.--]|]<font color="green">]</font> 03:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::more to the point, red links are for pages that don't exist ''yet''. They're just waiting for input from someone who knows what to put there. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 03:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Q) Bot usage == | |||
| : Help!! (admin) bot usages!! | |||
| : 1. user:A tagged '''<nowiki>{{no license|~~~~~}}</nowiki>''' to "image:sample.jpg" uploaded by user:B | |||
| : 2. user:Cbot tag '''<nowiki>{{subst:Image copyright|Image:sample.jpg}} --~~~~</nowiki>''' to user_talk:B, and change '''<nowiki>{{no license|~~~~~}}</nowiki>''' to '''<nowiki>{{no license notified by bot|~~~~~}}</nowiki>''' automatically. | |||
| :: What is bot command?? | |||
| : 2. user:Cbot insert speedy deletion tag to Image:sample.jpg after 7 days automatically. | |||
| :: What is bot command?? | |||
| : 3. user:Dbot(admin) delete all "image:..." in the certain speedy del category automatically. | |||
| :: What is bot command?? --] 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Err, what do you mean? There is no spesific command for that, the bot would have to be coded to parse the text and make apropriate edits. If you are looking for a bot to do these things try ]. Bots are automaticaly delete stuff is generaly not a good idea though, but the tagging can be done, and I believe ] already does most of that (except list for speeedy deletion), but it's not up and running full time yet aparently. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Right-to-left edit summary bug== | |||
| <!-- 15:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC) --> | |||
| ] | |||
| I'm not sure if this bug has been reported to bugzilla yet. It appears that the reason for the bug is that one of the edit summaries is in a right-to-left language. The next entry on the watchlist is right-to-left for the bullet, time, and first word of the link. The rest is left-to-right. — <small><sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">]</span></sup> • 2005-12-30 16:39</small> | |||
| == Severe bug in Windows == | |||
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901456.html | |||
| A previously unknown flaw in Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system is leaving computer users vulnerable to spyware, viruses and other programs that could overtake their machines and has sent the company scrambling to come up with a fix. | |||
| ] 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Related slashdot story | |||
| :The temporary workaround would be to unregister the affected dll, like this: | |||
| regsvr32 /u shimgvw.dll | |||
| :And then, once the dust has cleared, reregister it like this: | |||
| regsvr32 shimgvw.dll | |||
| :— <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Related article: ]. --] 20:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == New picture uploading bug problem == | |||
| Hello, I figured out how to upload pics to my site with help from Ambush Commander. Now I have a new problem. When I upload pics to the server and then create a new page/infobox about the band I'm working on and hit submit, the picture won't show up within the info box. The infobox template is also uploaded to my server. Here is the message I get when the page loads: http://static.flickr.com/36/79502535_9bf0ba3a4e_o.jpg I captured a screenshot of the error message I get when I try to put up the picture. Here is the message I get before the page loads:: http://static.flickr.com/36/79502533_0a0c5faf62_o.jpg Any ideas? I only have GD 1 installed on my server and I don't have any wayt to change that at the moment. But I think the error is more than that. Is there a way to turn off imagecreatetruecolor ? Any ideas on why this shows up? Thanks | |||
| ] 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :All your problems will be solved if you get your host to upgrade the software. Sorry. MediaWiki needs GD in order to resize images, and GD 2.0 added support for true color images. Unless you're willing to rewrite all image related code in MediaWiki to be compatible with GD, you must upgrade. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 04:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Right on, I just wasn't sure. I think I may just switch hosting, because godaddy is inexpensive, but very unfriendly, not up to date and unhelpful. Thanks, Ambush Commander. | |||
| ] 05:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Special:Undelete== | |||
| What's the story behind Special:Undelete being restricted? --- ] 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :see ] above. ] ] <small>]</small> ] 02:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. --- ] 03:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| =Sections archived on 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)= | |||
| == Confusion about renamed page and double redirects == | |||
| Hi. A few minutes ago I renamed the ] page to ], per the ] guidance to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." But just before doing that, I first created the ] page as a pure redirect to the original "SIRIUS" page. (Why I did this, I'm not entirely sure.) All is well, except that after I updated all the "What Links Here" pages to link to the newly-renamed page, I've got this one redirect I can't fix ] (which also shows up in the ] list on the new page as well). It ''looks'' like a ], but it doesn't seem to have any of the problems that a double redirect usually causes. Is this something I need to worry about? How can I fix it? --] 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is a problem and you simply need to edit it to point to the correct target. The redirect in question is ] (note that it's "channels", not "stations"). Click this link and you end up at ] which is redirect (not the ultimate target article). If you click the link following "redirected from ....", you'll be at the redirect you need to fix. -- ] <small>(])</small> 01:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::<nowiki>*slaps self on forehead* </nowiki>That's what it was; I didn't notice that one said "stations" and the other said "channels". I've fixed it. Thank you Rick ... have a happy new year! --] 02:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =Sections archived on 16:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)= | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <!-- 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC) --> | |||
| May an admin delete ] as now in commons?? | |||
| thanks, | |||
| ] | |||
| :Done -- ] | ] 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Rendering subsection edit buttons besides picture inserts == | |||
| If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Photosynthesis#Z_scheme, you'll find that the "edit" button for that section overlays the main text. - '']'' 18:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This is using Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows, IE seems to work fine on this occasion. - '']'' 04:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the other way around on ] running on ] -- main text overlays edit button. --''']''' <big>] ]</big> 20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarification == | |||
| Hi. Something just happened while I was editing an article, and it got me somewhat confused. in the article {{article|Saint Silvester Marathon}}, while I was adding the results for the current year, an anon edited a section of the article. I was editing the whole article, as I was reverting the edit from another anon and taking the opportunity to add the latest result. The second anon added the same result. In the history, his edit shows as happening one minute sooner than mine (which was most likely a matter of seconds, really). Well, the reverted part of the article was in a completely different section, but since I was also inputing data in the same place where the other editor was working, shouldn't I have gotten an edit conflict?? Especifically, I was editing an "outdated version of the article", since I clicked the oldedit link from the history page in order to revert the other anon's edit. So, since I saved that outdated version with my own modifications, shouldn't the edit from the second anon have been overwritten once I saved my edit?? What actually happened was that both edits went through, and the specific results board ended up with a double entry, which I then corrected by editing the article again. I'd like to know how this works exactly... Thanks, ] 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, and it's important to mention that, when I started my editing, the second anon had not yet done anything (as I said, I went to the history page in order to revert another anon's edit). So, in all likelihood, he started his editing and saved it while I was still editing it — so, naturally he would not have had any problems, since his edit went through undisturbed by mine, but since someone else edited '''while''' I was editing, maybe I should have gotten an edit conflict. Maybe the fact that I was editing the whole article and the anon edited only a section played some part in this? ] 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you edit an older version of an article, the edit conflict rules are different. I think your edit in that situation is supposed to override any subsequent edits without an edit conflict message being shown (but I think at some point I have seen edit conflicts in this situation, so I might be wrong). Editing an old version of an article is generally done in revert situations, and if you want to clean up the article at the same time you might be better making that a separate edit.-] 02:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Naturally. I just got "overly frugal", since, other than the revert, the new info to be added was really small, and 90% of it consisted of a copy and paste from a previous line in the board. I must have had the edit box opened for 45 seconds, but the anon probably did his edit in 30 seconds. In fact, the only reason why it took me longer was because I was editing the whole article, which is quite long, and that made me spend slightly more time while sliding down the sidebar from the top of the article, where it opens, all the way to the section where the addition was to be made. ] 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == categories not working == | |||
| Am I the only one For which the ategorys won,t work in the Main namespace??? ] 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nope. Me, too. ] 19:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :They are indeed a little bit broken. Trying to create one also throws up this error: "Fatal error: Call to undefined function: openshowcategory() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/EditPage.php on line 975". --] 19:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A ''little''??? ] 20:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Me too. Seems to be a widespread issue. ] 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Now we have the categories, but no listings...] 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And now the listings are back! --''']''' <big>] ]</big> 22:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated error message == | |||
| Today, every time I go to a new page, I get "Fatal error: Unknown function: cefined() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/BoardVote/BoardVote.php on line 6". If I refresh, it goes away. ]|] 20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Me also. ] 20:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems to have gone away. ]|] 01:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Question of Grammatical Technicailities == | |||
| this is a critical (and possibly controversial) question!!!!! | |||
| Technically, other than being a free, open-content, online encyclopedia, isn't ] a general encyclopedia? | |||
| My school's MLA guide says that I'm not allowed to have general encyclopedias as sources. | |||
| Help put an end to this madness! --anonymous | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia and your school is right you shouldn't be using general encyclopedias as sources for anything important. Misplaced Pages is great as a first step in learning from nothing but if you wan't you information to be solid and in depth then you should go elsewhere. (which is why wikipedia articles are supposed to cite sources although many unfortunately don't). ] 20:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Misplaced Pages is great as a first step in learning from nothing'': yes, but it's also a great first step in '''researching'''. Using Misplaced Pages as a first step for research is fully in line with Misplaced Pages's being an encyclopedia. ]</nowiki>]] 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ok. '''BUMMER!''' i wanted to use it! oh well. thanks anyways! --anonymous | |||
| :You ought to read ]. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| i just wanted to know because I have this project that I desperately needed to work on. So, thank you. I hope you have an awesome new year! --anonymous | |||
| == Where did the category listings of articles go? == | |||
| <s>I have seen several category pages, and they are NOT showing anything except any text related to the category that is already there. It is not a good thing, as leaving it alone ''will'' lead to CSD backlogs. What's going on? --''']''' <big>] ]</big> 20:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :Already asked, it looks like. Can't be good... --''']''' <big>] ]</big> 20:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Preview error== | |||
| Erroring out when hitting preview with message: | |||
| <code>Fatal error: Call to undefined function: openshowcategory() in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/EditPage.php on line 975</code> | |||
| Perhaps related to category problems listed above? ] <sup>]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>]</sub> 21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This error appears to be resolved. ] <sup>]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>]</sub> 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Template links== | |||
| Four bug reports above were due to . A new table has been introduced into the schema to track template links. Previously we just assumed that a link to the template namespace was a template inclusion. Now this assumption is gone and you can put templates in any namespace without subtle problems like them being missing from the list of used templates on the edit page. It'll take a while for the updates to finish though, in the meantime we'll have a mixture of the old way to identify template inclusions and the new way. -- ] 02:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Category:Cleanup by month== | |||
| Any idea why ] is no longer showing the categories for cleanup in each month that should be under it? ] 02:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What do you mean? -- ] 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, Now it's back (and something logged me out and I didn't notice it). Might be part of '''categories not working''' above. (which I couldn't find when I looked at first because it was general categories instead of this category). Sorry about that. Apparently its been fixed. ] 02:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =Sections archived on 15:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)= | |||
| == Page View Counter == | |||
| How can I look up how many page views an article has had? Thankyou. --] 04:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I believe that feature has been disabled by developer due to high cost query. ] <sup>(])</sup> 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup. Please see ]. -- ] <small>(])</small> 05:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Uh, I am pretty sure I saw a website where you could look up a page and see how many visits it has had? Does anyone know the URL? --] 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC | |||
| :::: Maybe Alexa? http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=wikipedia.org --] ]<small>●</small>] 09:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Archiving Current events page == | |||
| I tried to follow the instructions in ], but failed because (a) ] already exists, so I couldn't do a move to it and (b) ] has its "move this page" link suppressed. Does this mean that only an administrator can do the archiving? -- ] 08:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not that I want to do it, but now that ] has been moved to ], I observe that December 2005 has no '''Move this page''' option, whilst '''Current events''' does. How, what, why? -- 09:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Probably because the page protection follows the page when it's moved. --] 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Interesting week calculation byproduct == | |||
| According to <nowiki>{{CURRENTWEEK}}</nowiki>, we're still in week number 52, but <nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</nowiki> now shows 2006. Where this comes out to be a problem is where a page uses these parameters to create links to things like <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Is there a parameter that we can use that performs the full calculation showing both week number and year? ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :At worst in this case is that the "Selected article" and "Selected image" for the week aren't displayed until tomorrow, but it'd still be nice to have a real solution. Thanks. ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 17:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's no "solution", it's by design. The week number is associated with the year in which Thursday occurs (see ] and ]). --] 20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Underlined links? == | |||
| All of a sudden all of the links in articles are underlined... previously they would only be underlined when the mouse hovered over that particular link. ], which is the skin I'm using, hasn't changed. I'm pretty sure I haven't made any changes on my side either... any ideas? ~]]] 00:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a preference: the CSS that creates the change is generated . Try refreshing your cache amd check the preference for link underlining. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If you are using Firefox, Shift-Reload almost always works. --] 20:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Grabbing the backbutton redux== | |||
| See ] above. The person who was compalining has responded: | |||
| :''XP with service pack 2. Internet explorer 6.0 | |||
| :''I went to Goggle and looked up the sled dog statue in Nome Alaska. I couldn't use the back arrow to get back to Goggle. so I closed the browser window and tried again. I didn't remember "Misplaced Pages" so I stumbled into the same site again. '' | |||
| ::I'll leave it to a technical guru to try to explain this. ]|] 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is actually probably on Google's end. Occasionally I've noticed them piping outbound search links through a redirect page on the Google side, presumably to sample which links people go to for a given query. This person likely hit 'back' and landed on the redirect page, which sent them right back to us. There's nothing we can do about this problem, if it is the case. -- ]|] 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Categories== | |||
| In my opinion, the two greatest software modifications to Misplaced Pages were categories and redirects. My concern is that you can't redirect categories. It should work so that if ''category:Physical property'' redirects to ''category:physical quality'', all the pages in ''category:physical property'' get moved to ''category physical quality'' instead. Can this be done? ] 03:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In cases where this is necessary, ''soft redirects'' can be created using ]. The developers are aware of the request. -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Isn't the "moving" part done by one of the many bots? --] 20:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::] (a bot) recategorizes articles from categories redirected this way, but currently only categories last edited by an ]. See discussion at ]. -- ] <small>(])</small> 21:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == partial protection implementation == | |||
| I run a website using MediaWiki (Wikireason.org), and I just installed the lastest software update (1.5.4, released 21 Dec 2005) hoping that it would include the code for the new ] described in the announcement of 22 Dec 2005. However, nothing seems any different when I click on the "protect" tab at the top of a page. I'm not an admin on Misplaced Pages, so I can't compare the behavior of Wikireason to that of Misplaced Pages. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong as a user, as a site-admin, or if I misunderstood the nature of the software upgrade. I found no mention of the semi-protection policy in the release notes for 1.5.4. Any clarification will be greatly appreciated. ] 04:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's in 1.6. Only bugfixes are going into the 1.5 branch at the moment, not new features. So you'll have to wait until 1.6 is released. -- ] 04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the clarification. ] 17:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Any easier instructions on how to use importdump.php? == | |||
| I'm pretty lost with this issue. I also looked into bzip2 and mwdumper and for a beginner these programs ''are not'' user friendly at all, nor are there any step by step instructions. That is nobody's problem but my own, granted. And these are wonderful programs, but that still doesn't help me learn from a beginner's standpoint, which is what I want to do. So I want to use my importdump.php. I'm trying to transfer the most recent wikipedia pages_articles.xml.bz2 to my site. On the database download site it says ] <code>you might run the following command: | |||
| gzip -dc dump.xml.gz | php maintenance/importDump.php</code> and I don't know what this means. How do I do this? I opened the importdump.php file in my notebook, and have the .xml file on my desktop. now what? Thanks for the help. | |||
| ] 06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not familiar with the program, but I may have some general knowledge that will help, so here goes: The command looks to be intended for a *nix. Basically, it says to decompress dump.xml.gz and feed the output into importDump.php. importDump.php is a PHP program, and since PHP is not a compiled language, it needs a separate program to run it, hence "php maintenance/importDump.php". You can use anything you like to decompress the file, personally I use 7-Zip in Windows, it's reasonably user-friendly. In any case, you'll have dump.xml decompressed afterwards. Feeding that into importDump.php could be a bit harder. On a *nix, piping (such as the "|" above) makes it easy to pass files and data around from the command line, in Windows there's probably an argument you can pass to PHP to make it pull data from a file. You will need to have PHP on the server. Hope that helps! -] 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **On Windows, it probably would be "<code>php maintenance/importDump.php < dump.xml</code>" (after uncompressing dump.xml.gz). You ''can'' use "<code>gzip -dc dump.xml.gz | php maintenance/importDump.php</code>" on Windows (if you have gzip), but it would gain nothing, since (AFAIK) it would first uncompress into a temporary file and then read from the temporary file. --] 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The instructions at ] seem more up-to-date and useful. --] 20:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Section saves == | |||
| I was recently reminded to use Preview on the grounds that a Save is more costly in resources, which makes me ask "Isn't it less costly to do a Save page on an article section, than on an entire article?". My mental model is that Rendering the article is done probably on the Apache servers only, and that Save hits the Database servers as well as the Apache servers. --] 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Previews are cheaper than saves (Apache only, no database writes), a single save is cheaper than multiple saves (one database hit and cache invalidation rather than several). I'm not entirely sure, but I'd suspect section save rather than entire article save is roughly the same (the whole article must be saved and regenerated in either case). On a slow link, editing large articles in their entirety might take more clock time than multiple section edits and if you're editing an often edited article you're more likely to encounter an edit conflict, so there certainly may be reasons to edit by section. However, from the Misplaced Pages server perspective, it's almost certainly cheaper to make a single "whole article" edit than multiple "by section" edits. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The real problem with not using preview is that it clutters up page history, not that it places more of a load on the servers. -- ]|] 00:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can also put less load on the servers by writing really good articles and citing your sources. -- ] 05:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Wouldn't that cause ''more'' server load? If we get better, people will visit us more... <tt>:)</tt> ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =Sections archived on 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)= | |||
| == WMF safety of MediaWiki == | |||
| I know it's really Microsoft's responsibilty to fix the ], but as one of the most popular places on the internet, is Misplaced Pages safe from people uploading WMFs? | |||
| If, for instance, someone renames a malicious WMF as a JPG, will wikipedia try to display it? | |||
| What about uploading a WMF, and using <nowiki>]</nowiki> to infect a computer? | |||
| Thanks for info from anyone, happy new year! :-D --] 04:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not that I could ever condone such evil and probably illegal behavior, but... '''''cool!''''' :-) Windows sucks, you knew it, you paid Bill anyway, and now you get infected. It's not as if you don't reinstall all the time anyway though, so this isn't all that big of a deal actually. Next time you reinstall, give ] a shot. ] 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, most people actually get Windows preinstalled on the computer they buy, and don't really understand the concept of an ]. Many don't actually reinstall their software, they buy a new computer because their old one is too slow (bogged down in spyware). | |||
| ::But no-one deserves to be infected just by looking at a file! | |||
| ::Anyway, my point is whether Misplaced Pages is vulnerable as a disseminator of malicious files. ] 05:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is briefly mentioned in the . MediaWiki running on Unix does not allow the upload of .wmf files. It also preforms some basic sanity checks of some file formats, including .jpg. To exploit users of wikipedia, you would need to experiment with all the various file formats wikipedia accepts to find one where MediaWiki could be tricked into miss-recognizing a .wmf file as a true image file. It is not impossible that MediaWiki is vulnerable, but its not trivial to find the vulnerability. It is possible that MediaWiki running udner Microsoft Windows is itself moree vulnerable, if system calls are used to identify file type. ] 20:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : is the list of file types supported at commons, seems fairly restrictive. | |||
| ::According to a recent edit on the above linked Wikinews article, at least one format supported by MediaWiki is vulnerable. -- ] 21:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Only if no sanity check is done (if you rename a .wmf to .jpg, it probably will not be a valid ] file, which a sanity check could catch). The question being asked here is, "just how strong is MediaWiki's sanity checker?". | |||
| ::::Alternatively, one might ask how corrupt a file can be before Microsoft stops recognizing it as a .wmf file. If Microsoft stays fairly close to the spec when detecting wmf files, it should be trivial to add code that specifically zaps the header for wmf files. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please read linked to Wikinews article (more specificly, its talk page). Mediwiki does do sanity check, but it is still vulnerable. As far as the tester commented / discovered, none of the natively displayed format is vulnerable (due to the sanity checks), but a non-natively displayed format that's accepted by MediWiki is. -- ] 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Dirrect linky for the lazy. ] | |||
| ] 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This was fixed on Wikimedia websites a few hours ago, but the fix hasn't been released yet for use in other installations. -- ] 05:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A patch, however, is available here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-cvs/2006-January/013086.html . There is not fix for 1.4, so you should upgrade. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == User subpages? == | |||
| Is there a way to keep track of all my user subpages? --] ''(])'' 18:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You can see them all from ] (enter your user name). Is this what you're looking for? -- ] <small>(])</small> 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, thanks. --] ''(])'' 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:42, 11 December 2014
The archives of Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) may be viewed by looking through the edit history of this page, or by following the links on Misplaced Pages:Village pump archive.
Categories: