Talk:Main Page/Archive/2006-2011: Difference between revisions

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Issues: 503 Error Resource limit exceeded If you are seeing this page, your site is exceeding the allowed resources on the server.)
Line 101: Line 101:


= Issues =  
= Issues =  
== 12/2009: 503 Error Resource limit exceeded ==
The wiki needs to be relocated to a different server, maybe it could be directly hosted on flightgear.org?
If you are seeing this page, your site is exceeding the allowed resources on the server.
[[User:MILSTD|MILSTD]]


==Formatting problem==
==Formatting problem==

Revision as of 15:01, 28 December 2009

CVS vs Addon-aircrafts

I notice that the wiki is filled with aircraft projects which are not available per CVS. A lot of are Addons but it keeps unclear where to get them or if they part of the official hangar. Shoulden't be there maybe better a split between CVS and Addon here in the wiki? HHS 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
it is already possible to add a download link to the aircraft infobox. This should lead to the most up-to-date version of the aircraft (whether that is FlightGear.org, your own website or another third party host. CVS aircraft do not need a download link, as you will get it from the repository anyway. However, I do agree with you that it should be more clear. Do you prefer an "Addon" template (such as Template:Stub) or an extra option in the infobox? I am open to any idea.
Oh, and please sign your messages with four tildes (~) ;)
Gijs 16:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
seems, that most of the authors don't know the option of adding a link to their work in the aircraft infobox.
I would prefer an "Addon"-Template, as it seems to me that a certain number of developers don't want or can't add their work to CVS. This might other developers prevent from developing for CVS. At least it helps to prevent confusion, as people can now see more clear which aircrafts are available per CVS/ official flightgear.org Download page or somewhere else.
It might be maybe a bit difficult to sort out and convince people to make use of the new template.
HHS 17:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The template has been created and is available through Template:non-stable. Please add it to every article that covers an area (whether aircraft, feature, scenery or model) that is not commited to CVS and thus to any stable release. This includes aircraft under licences other than GNU GPL.
Regards, Gijs 20:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Translating the wiki (10/2009)

There needs to be a dedicated article about translating individual articles, especially about prioritizing certain articles (based on the stats) and about translation strategies. Also, there should probably be a couple of new templates specifically to be used for translation efforts, such as "translation request" and "translation in progress", as well as "translation help or review required".--MILSTD 18:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, apparently there's something in the works Help:Translate

Planned Wiki Changes & Todo

Please see Wiki Plans and Todo

Making the manual accessible via wiki software

On the other hand, I would recommend to also look into making "The Manual" editable via some sort of web based frontend, this would also ensure that people are able to easily contribute modifications to the manual, which is really the ultimate source for flightgear users. A possible approach might be to import the underlying LaTex sources in docbook format into some sort of docbook based wiki (i.e. http://sourceforge.net/projects/doc-book/).

As the manual is maintained in LaTex, is would be very hard to translate the wiki notes to include them in the manual. I suspect that this will be a "Won't Fix" as it is easier to copy and paste the text from the wiki and go from there. I am open to ideas though. Gorilla 06:33, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Using a dedicated FAQ database

Also, I feel there are some sections covered in the wiki that aren't really optimally handled by a wiki: most notably the "FAQ" section should preferably be implemented via some sort of dynamic FAQ system (i.e. http://www.phpmyfaq.de), likewise the sections titled "Bugs", "TODO", "Feature Requests", "ideas" etc. could probably all be handled far more effectively by using a real bug tracker such as bugzilla (http://www.bugzilla.org/), phpbugtracker (http://phpbt.sourceforge.net/) or mantis (http://www.mantisbt.org).

Using a dedicated bug tracker

A couple of days ago I started setting up a local test bugZilla installation, while I am currently unable to provide reliable hosting, I would really not mind installing it on whatever webspace is available, likewise I can provide the preconfigured database dump if someone else wants to use the preconfigured Flightgear specific categories.--FlightZilla 17:59, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

  • how to define and limit editing rights for certain users?

It's better to have one consolidated source of information for both bugs and descriptions. For now, user has to search through mailing lists, forums, user manuals (even not a single user manual, but several) and this wiki. It's absolutely not convinient for both users (they spend lot's of time searching required information) and developers (they spend lot's of time updating and syncronizing certain information in various sources).

This wiki is suitable for bug tracking too. Users can provide feedback in a convinient form. They just open the corresponding page and add their bug to the list. Developers can respond to the posted bugs right away. Mailing lists are a lot less user-friendly and effective and a lot less popular among users (not developers) in this regard, this is the reason why some bugs may stay unreported and why many users forget about FlightGear as soon as they run into a problem.

Unfortunately, it seems to me, this wiki is not popular among developers and users. -- Alfozavr 06:59, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

10/2009: Bug tracking has -again- become an issue [1]

Backups

Is the database regularly backed up? What about hosting the wiki directly at flightgear.org? --MILSTD 15:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, there are daily backups of the code and of the database. We also have off-site backups. Hellosimon 17:04, 4 February 2008 (EST)


Updates

I've updated MediaWiki to 1.11.1 so if you notice any regressions let me know. Hellosimon 15:03, 2 March 2008 (EST)

The wiki has moved to a new server which should relieve the performance problems. Hellosimon 11:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Regressions

  • code passages (i.e. XML) are not highlighted anymore

Proposed Additions

New Templates

Some wiki pages are of relatively poor quality, having some templates to elicit help would be useful, such as for example:

  • needs review by native English speaker
  • needs screenshots
  • needs better layout

Syntax Highlighting

  • what about some sort of true syntax-highlighting module, that would properly highlight XML & C++ ?
This can be achieved using the GeSHi syntax highlighting module for php.
With XML, C, C++ and Nasal source code being increasingly used on various wiki pages, this would be an important and huge step towards improving this wiki!

Main Page Addition

  • Add Link on Main Page to the list of howtos

List of all Howtos

Do edits of the main page warrant discussion or do people just to it?

I Just did it...

PDF Export

Regarding the manual: isn't there a possibility to export wikimedia pages to PDF format? That way, we could maintain the whole manual via this wiki. Any thoughts?--FlightZilla 18:10, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

If you check out the following links, you'll see that there are extensions available that would make it possible to easily provide PDF exports for all contents stored here, that way it would also become feasible to consider migrating the entire manual over to this wiki, so that it would also become more maintainble in the end: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiPDF http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PDF_Export --FlightZilla 17:21, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Hello, guys. If I get it right, you're discussing various documentation types here.

I think, this wiki is a lot more convenient than any other form of keeping documentation and at the same time communicating. It can be edited fast and easily and maintained up-to-date. However, the following questions need be solved:

  • how to convert it to an offline version (maybe .pdf) so that it could be bundled with the FlightGear base package?

07/2009: Even more talk about the merits of supporting PDF exports for wiki articles: [2]

Issues

12/2009: 503 Error Resource limit exceeded

The wiki needs to be relocated to a different server, maybe it could be directly hosted on flightgear.org?

If you are seeing this page, your site is exceeding the allowed resources on the server.

MILSTD

Formatting problem

The POTD does not format correctly at 1024x768 in Firefox, the text on most POTD creates a large space above and below the image. The POTD needs to either have a full page width, or much less text, or some other change in the formatting. Fg 15:50, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I will see what I can do about this tomorrow. Maybey I will add the picture above the text. In the meantime, please leave the colors as they are. Green is still FlightGear's main color... Thanks, Gijs 17:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Pictures are now centered above the text. Is it okay now? Btw: you could add more to! Just be sure you don't copy old ones. Gijs 07:35, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Great! That fixed it and I will add some POTD. Also, I would prefer grey or blue for main color. Fg 15:16, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Ok, that's nice. About the color: if we make it blue, the whole page is blue, because the links are also blue. Grey is in no way connected to FlightGear. Since we already have a different logo than the main FlighGear project it would be nice to have some sort of recognition for our users. I also don't like the standard style of this wiki (I use Monobook, like Wikipedia.org does), but that is probably an issue of taste. Gijs 15:55, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
I use monobook also and I agree about the standard style, but I would prefer some more variety in the color at some point. Fg 16:51, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, give some arguments why we should have various colors? We could make a poll on the forum to see what others think... Gijs 09:57, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
On this page here http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/ or even here http://www.flightgear.org/introduction.html they use light grey in the headers rather than green( if the goal is to be like the website). I would enjoy any number of other colors though, if you had a interest in changing from the current green (even another shade of green for instance). I understand if you just want to continue with the current color though. Fg 16:48, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
The content is already grey backgrounded. So a grey "header" color wouldn't be visible. Let's just keep it green and concentrate us on the index and quality of the articles and portals. Neverthless, thanks for all your help and sharing your thoughts! Gijs 17:14, 4 October 2008 (EDT)