Unique naming scheme for localized pages
Ok. To coordinate work a bit, I'd like to overtake the task to introduce a unique naming scheme for localized wiki pages. Commonly used and probably most sensible form of naming wiki pages is "FAQ_(Language)". In order to move pages like [FAQ(Deutsch] to [FAQ_(Deutsch], someone needs to delete the former pages since copy and pasting the content would not fulfill the wiki principle with version control and history. Or is there any other possibility which I don't see at he moment? hellwoofa ✉ 11:50, 3 November 2006 (EST)
- There is an option to rename the badly formulated titles. You simply click "Move this page" button at the bottom. Why it is called that I don't know, but it works like as a way to rename pages. --foxbunny 14:24, 5 November 2006 (PST)
Yeah, I know about the "move" function which works like "mv"... renaming something. But what I wanted to say is that it is impossible for normal users to move a page to a new title if this new title is already existing (in my case it was a REDIRECT). We don't have the rights to move it in this case... hellwoofa ✉ 13:41, 6 November 2006 (PST)
In preparation for possible DokuWiki migration
Also, here is one more suggestion. Since there is much talk about moving to DocuWiki, it may be wise to name all pages (including English) using the following scheme:
- Article title (Language)
This is also partly applied to the new category tree.
Also, please read this page.
See also Multilingual sites with DokuWiki
--Romashka 16:39, 5 November 2006 (EET)
On the question of moving to Dokuwiki...
I have Dokuwiki installed on three of my machines, and it is working very well. However, I can't see any benefits of using Dokuwiki when you have a working Mediawiki setup. The main reason to use Dokuwiki is IMHO the possibility to use a flat file hierarchy, and not having to worry about MySQL. Mediawiki has some very nice 'community features', e.g. the discussion pages and the concepts of categories. I strongly advise you to rethink your decision; I believe the problem with the ArchWiki is mainly an organisational problem (=> the content) and not a technical problem.
On a side note, I found that the wiki setup from the german archlinux community (http://www.archlinux.de/) is very nice. There are a little less options on the sidebar, but they are very nicely put together. You might want to take a look at it.
--Nv42 14:32, 7 November 2006 (EST)
There were no decission made about move to DokuWiki, only talks.
DokuWiki has discussion features, but discussions take place directly on article page, not on separate page.
AFAIK there are plans to make our look like on archlinux.de
--Romashka 15:50, 8 November 2006 (EET)
One advantage of moving to DokuWiki, could be that it allows multi-language content without the need for a multi-domain setup (see the comments under previous heading). Since I've started categorizing pages, noticed some problems that may occur for multi-lingual content. We could use some expert opinion on this one. --foxbunny 10:42, 8 November 2006 (PST)
As a little comment, on how Oddmuse Wiki does the translations: You insert a statement like <translation [[english pagename]] 2> at the top of the page, where the number 2 refers to the revision number of the english pagename. You then get a message like: "This is a translation of english pagename." and if necessary an additional message "The translation is out-of-date (see differences)". I don't want to say, Oddmuse would be right for you (I'm pretty sure it's not, even though I once was involved in writing extensions for it), but I thought it might be of interest. BTW, the new categories are nicely summarized! --Nv42 03:23, 10 November 2006 (EST)
Thanks for the comments on Oddmuse. One of the reason talks on DokuWiki have started is that is supports php-somethng. That's not my primary concern. However, I don't like the idea of languages other than English tagged like that. All languages should be equal on ArchWiki, and that's one of the things I think DokuWiki will solve (MediaWiki could do the just job as well, but technically, it would be easier to do in DokuWiki). --foxbunny 12:28, 10 November 2006 (PST)