• Jesse Phillips (23/23) Jun 20 2009 As stated in the "D wiki" post, I am planning to do major reorganization...
• Walter Bright (4/36) Jun 21 2009 The only real reason to track authorship is for legal reasons. If the
• Jesse Phillips (5/5) Jun 21 2009 On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:41:42 +0000, Jesse Phillips wrote:
• Jesse Phillips (23/31) Jun 21 2009 Nevermind I can have my One word Pages.
• Brad Roberts (14/21) Jun 22 2009 Yay.. a fresh look at the overall structure would be good. While you're...
• Jesse Phillips (4/15) Jun 23 2009 Personally I don't see much difference from one wiki to another, I never...
• Justin Calvarese (7/11) Jun 23 2009 Jesse,
• Jesse Phillips (2/9) Jun 23 2009 I would love to, thank you for the information on how to do that.
• Brad Roberts (8/25) Jun 23 2009 Ok.. then let's just leave things as they are. One request, would you w...
• torhu (2/7) Jun 23 2009 You problably want the link at the bottom called Archive.

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

As stated in the "D wiki" post, I am planning to do major reorganization 
of the prowiki content. In order to effectively do this I have to make a 
lot of changes and would like some input on how I should handle them.

Brad, I take it that the replacement effort is a no go?

The process will take time to complete, I'd like to know how important it 
is to keep access to all pages? I don't intend the final result to 
contain every existing page or its content.

Input on how separating information about D1 vs D2 would be good. The 
issue being a lot of content is shared but some of it is not.

The main question is, how important is authorship on a wiki? The problems 
below show what I'm referring to.

Moving Pages:

I want to make a consistent hierarchy for the pages. I realize I can 
reference the pages as they currently are, and many I will. The main one 
I'm looking at is "NotesForProgrammersUsedTo" pages, and instead just 
call it "ComingFrom" allowing for "ComingFrom/JavaLanguage."

I don't think you can move pages, so if I just copy the content into a 
new page then I'd become the "author." I don't have a desire to reference 
the old page, since that would be unclean, so what would be the 
appropriate way to handle this?

Moving Content:

Also related to the authorship problem is moving around sections of 
content from one page to another.

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Jesse Phillips wrote:
 As stated in the "D wiki" post, I am planning to do major reorganization 
 of the prowiki content. In order to effectively do this I have to make a 
 lot of changes and would like some input on how I should handle them.
 
 Brad, I take it that the replacement effort is a no go?
 
 The process will take time to complete, I'd like to know how important it 
 is to keep access to all pages? I don't intend the final result to 
 contain every existing page or its content.
 
 Input on how separating information about D1 vs D2 would be good. The 
 issue being a lot of content is shared but some of it is not.
 
 The main question is, how important is authorship on a wiki? The problems 
 below show what I'm referring to.
 
 Moving Pages:
 
 I want to make a consistent hierarchy for the pages. I realize I can 
 reference the pages as they currently are, and many I will. The main one 
 I'm looking at is "NotesForProgrammersUsedTo" pages, and instead just 
 call it "ComingFrom" allowing for "ComingFrom/JavaLanguage."
 
 I don't think you can move pages, so if I just copy the content into a 
 new page then I'd become the "author." I don't have a desire to reference 
 the old page, since that would be unclean, so what would be the 
 appropriate way to handle this?

The only real reason to track authorship is for legal reasons. If the 
history of the old pages is still there online, then this shouldn't be a 
big deal.

 
 Moving Content:
 
 Also related to the authorship problem is moving around sections of 
 content from one page to another.

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:41:42 +0000, Jesse Phillips wrote:

I could also use some opinions on naming. Because the Wiki requires camel 
case to make links I need/want to turn my one word pages into two word. 
Which has created repetition: DevelopmentWithD/DevelopmentTools/DebugTool

I don't think this is a big issue, but looking for opinions anyway.

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:40:40 +0000, Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:41:42 +0000, Jesse Phillips wrote:
 
 I could also use some opinions on naming. Because the Wiki requires
 camel case to make links I need/want to turn my one word pages into two
 word. Which has created repetition:
 DevelopmentWithD/DevelopmentTools/DebugTool
 
 I don't think this is a big issue, but looking for opinions anyway.

Nevermind I can have my One word Pages.

Otherwise everything is going well, most of the organization is planned 
out and am currently building the page content. The first stage will be 
using a lot of existing pages unmodified. The plan is to provide a few 
things.

-- More consistent page layout
-- Clear navigation points allowing the user to flow through pages
-- Separation of Language development and learning content
-- Removal of stagnant content and pages which are adding little value.
-- A help page that gives guidance on the best places to contribute their 
content

To give a taste of what is to come the front page will consist of these 
links:

* Why switch to D 
* Learning D as a first language 
* Learning D as a second language 
* Language Specification 
* Setting up an environment to compile programs 
* Seeking help using D  
* Language Development 
* Development with D 
* Current uses of D 

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

Jesse Phillips wrote:
 As stated in the "D wiki" post, I am planning to do major reorganization 
 of the prowiki content. In order to effectively do this I have to make a 
 lot of changes and would like some input on how I should handle them.

Yay.. a fresh look at the overall structure would be good.  While you're doing
it, please move anything that's essentially a bug report into bugzilla instead
of being in the wiki.

 Brad, I take it that the replacement effort is a no go?

I'm certainly willing to setup mediawiki for us.  The responses on the thread I
started a while ago ranged from useless side-discussions to luke warm to
insulting.  So I haven't done anything (that and I've been on vacation out of
town for the last 5 days).

Want me to?  I look to the main people who maintain the wiki for guidance.
Personally, I think it'd be an improvement, but I'm just one among many.

 The process will take time to complete, I'd like to know how important it 
 is to keep access to all pages? I don't intend the final result to 
 contain every existing page or its content.

I wouldn't consider keeping all the content terribly important.  There's a lot
of out of date info.  Probably a good bit of redundant info too.

Later,
Brad

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:30:36 -0700, Brad Roberts wrote:

 I'm certainly willing to setup mediawiki for us.  The responses on the
 thread I started a while ago ranged from useless side-discussions to
 luke warm to insulting.  So I haven't done anything (that and I've been
 on vacation out of town for the last 5 days).
 
 Want me to?  I look to the main people who maintain the wiki for
 guidance. Personally, I think it'd be an improvement, but I'm just one
 among many.
 
 Later,
 Brad

Personally I don't see much difference from one wiki to another, I never 
try to do anything fancy with them. I should have the restructured site 
up by the end of the week, but it will still need more content cleanup.

Justin Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

== Quote from Jesse Phillips (jessekphillips gmail.com)'s article
...
 Personally I don't see much difference from one wiki to another, I
 never try to do anything fancy with them. I should have the
 restructured site up by the end of the week, but it will still need
 more content cleanup.

Jesse,

I'm curious whether you were going to set up redirects for the new
pages as part of your reorganization efforts (e.g., "#REDIRECT
ComingFrom/BASICVariants").

Here's an example of a redirected page:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?edit=DocComments/StdBitarray

Jesse Phillips <JesseKPhillips gmail.com> writes:

Justin Calvarese Wrote:

 Jesse,
 
 I'm curious whether you were going to set up redirects for the new
 pages as part of your reorganization efforts (e.g., "#REDIRECT
ComingFrom/BASICVariants").
 
 Here's an example of a redirected page:
 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?edit=DocComments/StdBitarray

I would love to, thank you for the information on how to do that.

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

Jesse Phillips wrote:
 On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:30:36 -0700, Brad Roberts wrote:
 
 I'm certainly willing to setup mediawiki for us.  The responses on the
 thread I started a while ago ranged from useless side-discussions to
 luke warm to insulting.  So I haven't done anything (that and I've been
 on vacation out of town for the last 5 days).

 Want me to?  I look to the main people who maintain the wiki for
 guidance. Personally, I think it'd be an improvement, but I'm just one
 among many.

 Later,
 Brad

 
 Personally I don't see much difference from one wiki to another, I never 
 try to do anything fancy with them. I should have the restructured site 
 up by the end of the week, but it will still need more content cleanup.

Ok.. then let's just leave things as they are.  One request, would you work out
how to make examining the history of a page work correctly?  I never can seem to
get anything other than the most recent change.  Admittedly, I haven't tried in
a while.  That's one of the things about mediawiki I really like.  Exploring the
document history is _easy_.

Thanks,
Brad

torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:

On 23.06.2009 22:05, Brad Roberts wrote:
 Ok.. then let's just leave things as they are.  One request, would you work out
 how to make examining the history of a page work correctly?  I never can seem
to
 get anything other than the most recent change.  Admittedly, I haven't tried in
 a while.  That's one of the things about mediawiki I really like.  Exploring
the
 document history is _easy_.

You problably want the link at the bottom called Archive.