is our wiki layout is good enough?

z4ziggy · 2004-11-01 15:45:13

as suggested, im starting this poll to try and convince who ever is responsible for the wiki page to upgrade it's layout to look more like http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/demo/monobook or at least something more user friendly than our current layout.

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-11-01 16:15:08

Sorry, your questitions are suggestive. What is a wiki for? To find and give documentations. Can I use the current wiki to do that?

Yes, I can, without blood, sweat and tears.

For my taste, there is no need to shoot the horse.

phrakture · 2004-11-01 16:18:14

Pink Chick wrote:

For my taste, there is no need to shoot the horse.

Woah, is this a german saying (not trying to be rude)?

dp · 2004-11-01 16:39:22

phrakture wrote:

Pink Chick wrote:
For my taste, there is no need to shoot the horse.
Woah, is this a german saying (not trying to be rude)?

hmm ... i'm not sure if it is german ... i myself used it also and you can find it in some books, but i don't know the source of it. it means: no matter if the horse is slow or old, there is no need to shoot it, as a living horse is still more worth than a dead one.

what i know, is this idiom:
if you want to shoot the general, shoot the horse!, that is from the japanese text Katsu... but it is i think not the root of this idiom PinkChick or you are speaking about

sorry of being no help

<on-topic>i agree with Pink Chick</on-topic>

phrakture · 2004-11-01 16:41:49

I said german saying because she was from germany - heh.

The only similar phrase I've heard is "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"...

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-11-01 17:49:36

No, it is no genuine german phrase. It is just an illustration. A german phrase is "don't change the horse while riding". Some people say it more rude, thinking about what could happen to discharged horses. In my job, it is a phrase to "do a hard job to break a horse, and shoot it right after". You can also say "another colored pig is hunted through the village". It means, you work hard to finish a project, and just before you have it done, it will be replaced with something completely different. You'll never reach the end, but you'll feel very progressive.

dtw · 2004-11-01 18:34:04

shooting horse is slang for taking heroin here :shock:

phrakture · 2004-11-01 18:49:30

dibblethewrecker wrote:

shooting horse is slang for taking heroin here :shock:

ahahahahaha i didn't even think about that

rasat · 2004-11-01 19:12:54

There is one practical problem or let say it requires lot of work manually to copy all documents to a new wiki system if a satisfied layout cannot be found within phpWiki itself. I did a test copying one document to mediaWiki but phpWiki's codes are not accepted.... requires lot of editing.

PhpWiki has few themes and if true the new 1.3.11 (cvs) supposed to be similar to mediaWiki layout. For your information, phpWiki has a poor upgrade script. I suggest those who are interested in new layout, first install a wiki application in your machine, try copying few docs from our existing wiki, then we know if this layout idea will work.... I am just trying here to be practical.

phrakture · 2004-11-01 19:26:56

rasat wrote:

There is one practical problem or let say it requires lot of work manually to copy all documents to a new wiki system if a satisfied layout cannot be found within phpWiki itself. I did a test copying one document to mediaWiki but phpWiki's codes are not accepted.... requires lot of editing.
PhpWiki has few themes and if true the new 1.3.11 (cvs) supposed to be similar to mediaWiki layout. For your information, phpWiki has a poor upgrade script. I suggest those who are interested in new layout, first install a wiki application in your machine, try copying few docs from our existing wiki, then we know if this layout idea will work.... I am just trying here to be practical.

can't we just switch to the monobook theme?

phpwiki demo themes (these are slow)
monobook
default
smaller
hawaiian
macosx
portland
sidebar
wordpress
crao
wikilens
spacewiki

rasat · 2004-11-01 19:40:53

phrakture wrote:

can't we just switch to the monobook theme?

Thanks for the links, here we can see what can be done.
The monobook (same layout as in mediaWiki) I think its in 1.3.11 only.

phrakture · 2004-11-01 20:00:49

i kinda like crao or wordpress... spacewiki is funny because it's so hideous... who decided making that theme was a good idea? lol

dp · 2004-11-01 22:04:00

if someone feels changing it, i would be for monobook , as i really got used to it @ wikipedia

... however: i don't see the point of changing anything, as this is only style and not contents

Dusty · 2004-11-02 01:40:30

Anything wrong with having alternate stylesheets? Then the user can choose.

cactus · 2004-11-02 02:58:46

what version of phpwiki does wiki.arch use?

rasat · 2004-11-02 05:43:23

cactus wrote:

what version of phpwiki does wiki.arch use?

I asked apeiro, its 1.3.7
I took a look at the source, its a bit hard to upgrade when first release after 1.2.4. But it can be done.

Can any of you make one PKGBUILD for cvs version, so we can test it. In Arch Wiki admin there is one backup feature to save all documents... I always keep a fresh copy in my machine. If we get the cvs installed in our machine, we import the backup and see how it works.

cactus · 2004-11-02 09:25:35

blech..
i tried installing phpwiki somewhere..they really need to better document their config file.
If you want any type of user auth, it is like dancing in the woods with your feet on fire..
version 1.3.10 seriously blows..stay away.
:shock:

dtw · 2005-04-15 07:19:12

can we ressurect this thread?

I think we could really benefit from a better wiki solution.

phpwiki is simple and effective but i'm sure it can't be too hard to migrate the wiki pages inc. tags to a better format.

Features i would particularly like are:

a) being able to use a bit more colour
b) links to in page book marks

the software that gentoo uses is pretty nice it seems.

I think our wiki, as it is getting much bigger and better deserves more!

I don;t even think migrating by hand would be too bad if we all worked at it!

cactus · 2005-04-15 07:30:19

I have a python script that can export the wiki text from a gdbm file to plain text. It is hard to tell if it is getting ALL the pages, but it seems to be..
I am working on export to html, but I am fumbling with regexp to convert the phpwiki text to html..it is taking a while. I will probably look at just using phpwiki's regexp functionality to do the conversion of wikitext to html, but it may take a while.. (would have to reimplement the php in python, or have a seperate utility do the conversion externally..and do that in php)..

In wiki search, I found one that looks pretty nice. It is called cowiki. The devel just changed hands recently, so it seems to be in a state of flux right now, but it looks nice.
I am working on a wiki myself too, but if I find one out there that works, or can be made to work with a few simple modifications, I might drop my wiki project...

dtw · 2005-04-15 07:34:10

what about mediawiki? it seems pretty popular! and, unlike alot of wiki projects, is under constant development, phpwiki has almost totally gon etothe dogs AFAI can see

list of wiki projects http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiEngines

MediaWiki featire list http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_feature_list

cactus · 2005-04-15 07:40:57

yes. it would be better to just edit your previous post..silly dibble..

that is a good list of wikis though. I see cowiki is on there. I don't think it was the last time I checked (a few months ago before I found it). the new dev team must be ratcheting up their advertisement.

rasat · 2005-04-15 07:52:34

Posting and editing should be simple and MediaWiki is not. Before changing the wiki, Arch has decided to wait until SolarWiki is ready.

dtw · 2005-04-15 07:56:41

oh - ok rasat - get cracking cactus!

cactus · 2005-04-15 08:00:59

rasat wrote:

Posting and editing should be simple and MediaWiki is not. Before changing the wiki, Arch has decided to wait until SolarWiki is ready.

Solarwiki could use some help.
Anyone wanna write a wikitext parser in php?

Well, my progress is a bit slow lately, but once I get a parser worked up, it shouldn't be too far down the road to a rudimentary first release.

EDIT: eep!

Pierre · 2005-04-15 09:50:40

cactus wrote:

rasat wrote:
Posting and editing should be simple and MediaWiki is not. Before changing the wiki, Arch has decided to wait until SolarWiki is ready.
Solarwiki could use some help.
Anyone wanna write a wikitext parser in php?

Well, my progress is a bit slow lately, but once I get a parser worked up, it shouldn't be too far down the road to a rudimentary first release.
EDIT: eep!

OK, what kind of parser do you need exactly? Currently I am working on a forum-script. It uses PHP5 and I added tags similar to MediaWiki. In addition to this there is a code-parser for syntax-highlightning. Its quite fast because it parses the tags only when a message is posted.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-11-01 15:45:13

is our wiki layout is good enough?

#2 2004-11-01 16:15:08

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#3 2004-11-01 16:18:14

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#4 2004-11-01 16:39:22

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#5 2004-11-01 16:41:49

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#6 2004-11-01 17:49:36

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#7 2004-11-01 18:34:04

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#8 2004-11-01 18:49:30

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#9 2004-11-01 19:12:54

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#10 2004-11-01 19:26:56

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#11 2004-11-01 19:40:53

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#12 2004-11-01 20:00:49

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#13 2004-11-01 22:04:00

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#14 2004-11-02 01:40:30

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#15 2004-11-02 02:58:46

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#16 2004-11-02 05:43:23

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#17 2004-11-02 09:25:35

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#18 2005-04-15 07:19:12

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#19 2005-04-15 07:30:19

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#20 2005-04-15 07:34:10

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#21 2005-04-15 07:40:57

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#22 2005-04-15 07:52:34

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#23 2005-04-15 07:56:41

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#24 2005-04-15 08:00:59

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

#25 2005-04-15 09:50:40

Re: is our wiki layout is good enough?

Board footer