User talk:LtWorf: Difference between revisions

From KDE UserBase Wiki
(Created page with 'Thanks for doing some work on the Kopete pages. As soon as we have finished the current round of checking which pages need updates, the next task is to improve the structure of ...')
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Thanks for doing some work on the Kopete pages.  As soon as we have finished the current round of checking which pages need updates, the next task is to improve the structure of UserBase.  At that point pages such as the Webcam one is likely to be renamed http://userbase.kde.org/Applications/Internet/Kopete/Webcam_support.  It shouldn't cause any problems, because anyone coming to it through an old link would be redirected.  This will apply to all the Kopete subpages. --[[User:Annew|annew]] 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing some work on the Kopete pages.  As soon as we have finished the current round of checking which pages need updates, the next task is to improve the structure of UserBase.  At that point pages such as the Webcam one is likely to be renamed http://userbase.kde.org/Applications/Internet/Kopete/Webcam_support.  It shouldn't cause any problems, because anyone coming to it through an old link would be redirected.  This will apply to all the Kopete subpages. --[[User:Annew|annew]] 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
:: How could I not welcome a Trekkie :-), especially my favourite character.  Seriously, though, mediawiki does support tree-like directory structure.  In fact the documentation recommends it.  The problem is that new pages need creating with that structure built in, and we have not done that consistently - in fact few pages are sensibly structured.  Think of a new user that's looking to see what multimedia applications are available.  If he's a firefox user he may use middle-click to tabs, but there's a fair chance he'll just click. 
::I find it really annoying when I'm editing that there's no easy way back up one layer.  There is a breadcrumb extension which I'd like to have installed, but that will use whatever structure we have, or don't have, for that matter, which would be a mess as it stands at the moment.  That's why I want to work on structure as soon as I can get to it.  In fact, though, the pages don't move.  They are just re-directs, so I think the breadcrumbs will work perfectly but there is no danger of anyone not being able to access a page from the old address.  --[[User:Annew|annew]] 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:42, 29 October 2009

Thanks for doing some work on the Kopete pages. As soon as we have finished the current round of checking which pages need updates, the next task is to improve the structure of UserBase. At that point pages such as the Webcam one is likely to be renamed http://userbase.kde.org/Applications/Internet/Kopete/Webcam_support. It shouldn't cause any problems, because anyone coming to it through an old link would be redirected. This will apply to all the Kopete subpages. --annew 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How could I not welcome a Trekkie :-), especially my favourite character. Seriously, though, mediawiki does support tree-like directory structure. In fact the documentation recommends it. The problem is that new pages need creating with that structure built in, and we have not done that consistently - in fact few pages are sensibly structured. Think of a new user that's looking to see what multimedia applications are available. If he's a firefox user he may use middle-click to tabs, but there's a fair chance he'll just click.
I find it really annoying when I'm editing that there's no easy way back up one layer. There is a breadcrumb extension which I'd like to have installed, but that will use whatever structure we have, or don't have, for that matter, which would be a mess as it stands at the moment. That's why I want to work on structure as soon as I can get to it. In fact, though, the pages don't move. They are just re-directs, so I think the breadcrumbs will work perfectly but there is no danger of anyone not being able to access a page from the old address. --annew 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)