Difference between revisions of "Talk:Old Home Page"
|Line 62:||Line 62:|
Revision as of 05:55, 29 August 2007
Please note this page is only for discussion of matters relating to the functioning and features of the Audacity Wiki. Please do not make technical support requests here, or general comments about the Audacity program. If you require technical support with Audacity, or wish to give us your views about it, please visit our page on the main website.
Restoring pages after spam
This wiki has suffered spam attacks now and then. If it happens again, you may aid restoring it by following the instructions at the Removing Spam page.
Suf 12:55, 23 June 2007 (PDT) (modified)
PlugIn / plug-in
The front page has instances of both. I don't really care which is deemed canonical, but I was trying to search the page for instances of plugin/plug-in so consistency would be a good thing. Perhaps PlugIn was written in camel case out of habit from other wiki systems, which treat those as WikiWords? But MediaWiki doesn't care, so just pick one and standardize it.
Thanks, Philip 09:43, 13 March 2006 (PST)
Unfortunately as we allow users to freely edit, we'll never get consistency (I'd personally prefer all pages to have spaces between words for the reasons you state). But if any one wants to write a page with suggested standard words and phrases when writing here, go ahead. In the case of plugins, Audacity calls its folder "Plug-ins" (hyphenated) and I suspect that usage is the more correct. - Gale
Is it possible to block regular vandals? It's not good to go two days with porn-spam on the front page. Also, some of the links on the main page don't contain fingerspaces. Should they be added? Tommylommykins 10:11, 9 November 2006 (PST)
There are really a lot of orphaned pages. The only ways to get to these pages is by hitting the "Random page" link in the navigation bar, by hitting "Special pages" then "Orphaned pages" or by seeing them in the "Recent changes" list soon after they've been made. Someone in charge of the wiki might want to check these pages and either delete them or create links where they would be appropriate.
(That really was the long way of saying that people really aren't going to see those pages)
You will also find that users have created pages for themselves which is redundant. We have user pages that are linked when using our signature with 3 or 4 tilde like this ~~~~
A Witt 16:05, 20 January 2007 (PST)
Most of the orphaned pages have now been removed. The few remaining pages are still considered for actions. There is also a new page (Pages suggested for deletion) where anyone can suggest pages to be removed. (23:05, 9 July 2007 (PDT))
Need for a style guide?
Is there a need for a "style guide" for this Wiki? Recently the pages seem to become more and more colorful, and different editors use color slightly differently. Personally I think it would be a benefit to our readers if we kept to "general Wiki style", with only a few specific "Audacity Wiki styles". It would also benefit the editors, as it would limit the amount of html tags to be used.
Things that there could be a guide for are:
- Plainlinks or not for external links. (I prefer classic style, i.e. with the trailing little arrow icon.)
- Use of if you want to ... click here or not. (I prefer writing out a descriptive link name, not just here.)
- Use of colors.
- How to format a page intro, before the first heading.
(Suf 23:30, 9 July 2007 (PDT))
Some colouring is I think useful to the users and lack of colour in my opinion is a serious drawback on technical Wiki pages. I think you agree with this for application menu paths (the principle if not the colours). I have been using green for something that is a HINT or an advisory and #BA55D3 for an imperative type of declaration.
It is not easy to draw rules about "here" or "descriptive names". Sometime the flow of the text makes it easier to say "you can download the XYZ software [here]." Also can you add a mouseover to links giving a description? Some say you should put a plain text link so you can copy and paste it easier for future use, but that seems to be discouraged on Wikis and should only be done in exceptional cases because of the length of many URLs.
How to format a page intro. might be good. E.g. "_TOC__" to force a table of contents when there are less than four categories is little known.
Plainlinks or not are controversial. I hate the classic trailing arrow myself and Wiki and non-Wiki links should display in slightly different colours. Against this Internet Explorer seems to add the space where the trailing arrow would otherwise be anyway, and I have not yet figured a way that makes plainlinks persist across paragraphs in a Wiki so quite a few extra tags are sometimes needed to use them.
What is the point of your Reply template Suf, do you mean it is a composition template?
I think you can go too far regimenting style on a Wiki. It is a place for creation and within reason there ought to be some latitude if what is being done "differently" is an aid to intelligibility. For example someone might come up with something that looked so good that we might want to use it regularly in our own contributions.
By the way an updated version of the MediaWiki software is likely to be used in the not too distant future that should have more options for formatting or possibilities to make a particular formatting default.