Pandora Wiki Cleanup in progress


Nono, and that isnt a problem. This thread is to say that there is a cleanup, the PM was the same idea. It just boggles me that when i say im doing cleaning, someone thinks i have no plan whatsoever and starts trying to revert it without even asking or knowing how the wiki pages work.  With respect to "Undeletion will not be performed if it will result in the top page or file revision being partially deleted. In such cases, you must uncheck or unhide the newest deleted revision." please understand that i didnt want to put the effort in to check what had been done when you can revert your own changes, something im happy to do when people ask me. Note, ask, not condemn. I can repeat the issue all day long and linux-swat can repeat that it shouldnt be an issue.
 
Ok ED, i'm sry and sad to ask that, but please, restore.

My last edit to my valid pages was the 15 August 2013 at 16:07.

First destructive event happened the 17 at 09:59
 
Sure, lets destroy a whole days worth of work because we again refuse to read edit logs. I have been editing the wiki since this morning.

How about you read my posts then,→ undo your edits and ill undo mine, thats how things work, ask first, then do, have a plan, ill fork the whole thing off and then edit it in peace.

Edit: ill explain it as pain as i can, directory addressing isnt a good naming convention for filenames. Reimplementing file structure with dead slashes does nothing but break things, you cant move anything. If you had sections you could move them freely. I dont understand why that level of abstraction has to be cluttering up the whole wiki.

All the "filenames" are Software projects/OS/Slackware/Advanced usage/* except for Software projects/OS/Slackware/Build-system again, it would be a complete disaster if it wasnt inconsistent too.

If you feel its too big for one page, maybe move it to a separate wiki more relevant to the content?

You can have all your content, all the sections you desire, just dont have it be like that and everywhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I won't restore the database if it's easy to undo everything.


Let me see if I can understand that... Linux-SWAT has an issue that everything is now on one big page and stuff has been deleted.


Comradekingu has an issue that all pages are static and therefore, if any page is moved, all links to that page have to be fixed as well. Therefore, he wants to change that into sections. Which makes sense, as Linux-SWAT might not even know which other Wiki pages links to a slackware page, and if he changes one, it might break links...


Why not keep the Slackware pages as they are, without deleting anything, but change them to sections? Then everyone would be happy, right?


So would that be a solution? Going back. To state A first, then changing the Slackware pages in a way they stay as they are but with proper links?
 
I won't restore the database if it's easy to undo everything.
Click to expand...
Good, i can restore the old pages if i want, but with the aforementioned problem, lets be reasonable enough to undo our own edits if there is a problem and someone either asks or explains.

As for moving the pages to one place, that has been edited back in a most peculiar way. Not restored, just edited back.

Nothing has been deleted, it has been moved. Linux-swat wants his pages back, and its the pages that is the problem.

Why not keep the Slackware pages as they are, without deleting anything, but change them to sections? Then everyone would be happy, right?
Click to expand...
YES!

The stuff that i broke links to has to break, its not worth putting up redirects for. We can have one redirect for the main page (that is not broken now, but it will be).

But to do that you first need to do what i did, (which took 40 minutes since there are 36 pages) then what i proposed doing. Then you can change it around willy nilly without breaking anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't care if you use a bagpipe, i want my all pages in their original state.

I'll put them on another server and i'll be free from you.
 
I still strongly feel that the original maintainers opinion should weigh in rather heavily in the decision whether his preferred structure in itself is a problem. 
 
Moxie said:
I still strongly feel that the original maintainers opinion should weigh in rather heavily in the decision whether his preferred structure in itself is a problem. 
Click to expand...
I fully support Linux-Swat here.

It's his work and no one may touch it without permission.

Give him his pages back.
 
Its like someone other delete/change your work from long Time.

When i where in Linux Swats Skin where i angry too.

Is that such a big Problem to give him the Backup from that Sites?

He is the only Slackware Maintainer and i love his work much.

It sound unfair for me when you even give him not the Backups/Texts from his Site.

When the Backups not.maybe you can give him all Texts/Links and can CopyPaste into his new Sites.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can anyone restore my pages NOW please ?

I waited all day and i'm now not only pissed off, but also out of patience.
 
If Linux-SWAT is making a new website for the pages, might it make sense for ED to restore the wiki backup temporarily in a different place?
 
I have a better idea: restore the database, and create a wiki especially for vandals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
That...was interesting. I fail to see how a page with 227 sections can be any improvement on anything? Apart from what apparently is a desire to minimize the number of pages that is dedicated to a single "thing", but come on - There is quite a difference whether the "thing" in question is a shooter or a full-on alternative OS?

That is still not quite the point, though. Maybe all that information isn't necessary on the wiki, or maybe it is a good idea to combine some things together in a somewhat lesser number of pages (since, apparently, numbers-of-pages is an important metric), or maybe the pages can be named in a way that makes it somehow better to link to, or whatever (I didn't quite get what the problem was with the links), but that really, really should be exhaustively discussed with, in this case, Linux-SWAT first.

And I must say that I've used the "old" SL4P-page several times and never had any problems finding answers to whatever was bugging me at the time. What is the point of this?
 
I'll restore the old database in a new place, so we have both and can fix stuff.


There are some things I don't understand right now, maybe you can help me out.


Linux-SWAT claims the structure of his stuff has changed, etc.


Comradekingu claims he wants to keep the structure but fix it so that the links will not be static anymore.


I'd love to have that solution (same structure as before but without static links). I guess Linux-SWAT would be fine with that as well.


But... if that was what comradeking has been doing, what went wrong here?


Is the structure the same as before or broken?


Is it all on one page or the same as before but with proper links?


I'm pretty much puzzled right now.
 
I think what we really need to do is have a separate blank wiki for us to sandbox around in, get things right and stuff. So we can keep progress and everyone can agree on what is changed etc then merge back to the original wiki as things are not structured at all and thats what comrade is trying to do.

A lot of stuff is from the pre DragonBox days. For example the accessories page does not have the new case and is missing information on .next and stuff. I also don't see why we need a massive emulators / game list that is not maintained. Perhaps in the future when new repo applications are made a wiki page is made as well then the repo links directly to that wiki page and the person in charge of the application can dump any essential info there. Can this be done? (This would work much better than having individual forum threads)

I think the ideal solution here is to have ED or someone host a second temporary wiki which we can create new Wiki pages based on older stuff instead of deleting the current pages. I'm happy to host the new temp wiki but I am not near my server to be able to configure it.


Few issues will arise though. If someone updates the old wiki with content then we'll need to apply the changes to the new wiki.

We'd need volunteers and it would have to be done rather quickly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like ED, I'm not entirely sure what just happened, but I thought I'd make a quick reply to a comment...

Wally said:
I think what we really need to do is have a separate blank wiki for us to sandbox around in, get things right and stuff. So we can keep progress and everyone can agree on what is changed etc then merge back to the original wiki as things are not structured at all and thats what comrade is trying to do.
Click to expand...
You can do that in the current Pandorawiki. Just create a new page like:
User:Wally/article-name

That can be your work-in-progress or alternate version of whatever article you're working on. Anything that follows that format is a personal sandbox page and you have freedom to do anything you want within it (within legal limits, of course...), just don't connect it to the regular non-sandbox pages on the wiki.

This is standard operating procedure within Wikipedia proper, I see no reason why it wouldn't work here.

In our case there could even be a little notice on top of the "standard" page that there's also an alternate version of the article present [[here]]. Linux-SWAT could make all his updates in the sandbox page (which he's more comfortable with) while other people could use those updates to update the "regular" version of the page.

That is, if no compromise can be found. Personally speaking, I would never try to make major changes to an article like this without first making the revised version of it in MY sandbox and asking the article maintainer if he's okay with those changes. If the reply is affirmative, only THEN would I change it over. Even if there's no one maintainer, if you're making major changes to an article it's usually better to make the new version in your personal sandbox and ask on the talk page of that article for people to check it out and see if there are any objections. It's much smoother for everyone to do it that way. It takes a little longer, but there are no headaches like this discussion here.

(also, I'm sorry for being away all these months and not being around to help out on the Pandorawiki...)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wally
Collaborative Emulator Compatibility Lists
2 3
Replies
41
Views
8K
comradekingu
comradekingu
Wally
Pandora Wiki ideas?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Wally
Wally
C
Improving The Wiki
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Prometheus
Prometheus
comradekingu
Pandora wiki open for business. You can help.
9 10 11
Replies
205
Views
20K
Nemo_bis
N
S
What Is Likely To Be Ready When The Pandora Is Released?
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
philly
philly
Back
Top