FlightGear wiki:Village pump

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2012, 2013
2014, 2015


Welcome to the Village Pump. This page is used to discuss the technical issues, operations and guidelines of the FlightGear wiki.

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

Old discussion should be moved to a FlightGear wiki:Village pump/Archive YEAR. These discussions can then be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate.

Welcome template?

I have been thinking about suggesting a welcome template, for example named {{welcome}}, to place on top of (at least) new users user discussion pages.

It should welcome the (new) user

In addition, it should probably mention and/or link to pages mentioning:

  • The introduction page/tutorial (Hmm, I do not think I did finish that one. See Help talk:Tutorial (perm)).
  • Help pages
  • How to use categories (in particular not like #tags, ;-) but also that image and article categories should be separate, but link to each other)
  • The portals
  • The style manual
  • Discussion pages and where to discuss what:
    • How to use discussion pages
    • The wiki in general: The village pump (this page)
    • Wiki articles: Article discussion pages
    • Wiki user actions: User discussion pages

Maybe it should also mention that FGAddon aircraft, effects, other features etc. (except for their articles) and their bugs should be discussed on the forum, unless developers say otherwise, and that core features should be discussed on the developer mailing list and core bugs on the bug tracker.

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 30 January 2016 (EST)

I think this is a great idea. A nice concise summary with links to help a new user navigate the FlightGear jungle would be a great addition. It should however remain very short with simple sentences - while being complete - as many users are not native speakers. So maybe there should be translations of the template with manually added links at the bottom for easy access to all the translations?
Bugman (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2016 (EST)

Permanently removing spam bots

For permanently removing spam bots, has the UserMerge Mediawiki extension been considered? I use that regularly on my own wiki, though there we have also reverted to communicating to the person via email before manually granting access (probably not an option here), as all of the Mediawiki captcha methods were recently cracked.

Bugman (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2016 (EST)

Oh, for the extension, we simply have a user called 'Spam bot' in a blocked state, and merge the spam bot accounts into this one, deleting the old account.
Bugman (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2016 (EST)
I'd use the abuse filter extension instead (much more powerful and automated) - other users have also proposed different remedies, see this forum thread. Anyway, Gijs is going to upgrade MediaWiki shortly and review the current anti-spam measures.
-- ElGaton (talk to me) 06:26, 13 February 2016 (EST)
A lot of the spam bots are using their name as advertising nowadays, so the UserMerge extension is the only one I know which will allow a user and associated name to be permanently deleted.
Bugman (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2016 (EST)
The problem now is that they're also adding the information to the page title, so that it will still show up in the deletion logs [1] in other words, there's still some SEO juice associated with deleted entries ... Another idea would be to allow admins to temporarily disable wiki registrations/article creation, e.g. if more than 2 admins agree, this could be done to protect the wiki from spam attacks.
Hooray, you should sign your posts ;) The bots don't target the deletion logs, as that's a little pointless. It's a Special:* page, and the default Mediawiki robots.txt file tells all search engines to not index these pages. User pages, page histories, etc. are however normally indexed.
Bugman (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2016 (EST)
The point was not what the bots are targeting, but what shows up in the logs - i.e. SEO-wise - Gijs' article blacklist stuff should help with that hopefully. PS: I could not find the signature button on the mobile device I am using, and I am not too good at remembering the correct number of tildes ;-) Hooray (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2016 (EST)

WIP vs. Under construction

I have been beginning to miss the under construction template[2] more and more (though I could it definitively could be improved).

I have begun to appreciate the need to differentiate between letting readers that a page is to be considered a yet to be finished construction site (though we in a way have that through the {{incomplete}} template) and letting the reader (and other editors) that a page will receive a large amount of work for some hours or even days, usually the use for {{WIP}}.

In summary i miss templates giving a clear distinction between conditions akin to "Under construction" and "Caution - Wet floors", rather than "being worked on" and "could need more work".

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 10:11, 17 February 2016 (EST)

Fr/Pilote automatique


Je viens de créer la page de traduction en français de l'article original en anglais Autopilot. Vu mes faibles compétences en matière de pilotage, vu que je n'ai pas sur ma version téléchargée d'avion avec un pilote automatique, la traduction doit souffrir quelques approximations, si ce n'est des contresens plus ennuyeux. Si quelques bonnes âmes plus qualifiées pouvaient me faire la grâce d'une relecture... merci d'avance.

Cordialement, et Hop ! --F-WTSS (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2016 (EST)

MediaWiki updated to 1.26.2

I've updated MediaWiki to the latest stable release (1.26.2) today. I've still got to update some of the extensions, so there may be regressions for now. Please report bugs if you find any. For a list of changes, see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Release_notes/1.26

Gijs (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2016 (EST)

Cheers! I was hoping that it would solve the uneditable Chinese, Russian, and other non-latin character-based pages (Polish strangely as well), but unfortunately that issue remains.
Bugman (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2016 (EST)
Hm, looks that will require quite some attention indeed. I'm afraid that'll has to wait for now.
Gijs (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2016 (EST)

Nasal Syntaxhighlighting

Thanks for your efforts, btw: Nasal syntax highlighting is gone again.
This unsigned comment was added by Hooray (Talk | contribs) 17:22, 19 February 2016‎ (UTC)
Unfortunately this time it isn't me forgetting to copy a file. The SyntaxHighlight extension no longer uses GeSHi, but has switched to Pygments. This means our Nasal mapping no longer works and has to be re-written. If anyone is interested, be my guest. See http://pygments.org/docs/lexerdevelopment/
Gijs (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2016 (EST)
We can use the ECMAScript/JavaScript lexer[3] for now, my suggestion would be to copy that over to a file so that we can work on a custom Nasal lexer (Syntax is almost identical, with a few different keywords, and many others being irrelevant). What is missing/different can be obtained from other lexers that are similar, e.g. [4] Hooray (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2016 (EST)