First thing I always do after a version upgrade is hack the login page in to
something that looks like this:
http://bird.net.au/bird/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin
It isn't pretty, but at least it is easier for new non-geek users to understand.
I wrote:
>> First thing I always do after a version upgrade is hack the login page in
>> to something that looks like this:
>> http://bird.net.au/bird/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin
>> It isn't pretty, but at least it is easier for new non-geek users to
>> understand.
In reply, Phil wrote:
>Looks pretty enough to me. Why don't you submit something similar for the
> official release?
Thanks Phil. Several reasons apply.
1: I'm on 1.45, so it might not work with 1.5. (No plans to upgrade my wiki to
1.5 anytime soon. Upgrading takes a truly horrible amount of admin time, so
I'll probably wait for 1.6.)
2: I got tired of hacking the code about every time I upgraded, so this time
(for the upgrade to 1.45) I did a real quick and dirty job on it, complete with
nasty hard-coded HTML in the php.
3: I have no idea if it works with Monobook or not. Probably not.
4: It would be a trivially easy task for any of the php gurus around here to
duplicate the general look and feel of my login page, but code it better.
On the basic idea of the layout, though, I think that something along the
general lines of my example page would be a good thing.
Splitting the log-on/create account function off into two pages is something I
often thought about, but there are also good reasons to do it all-in-one. The
current MediaWiki standard arrangement is good because:
* A single screen is easy for regular users: one link takes you straight to the
login page: click, click, done. No need to decide if you need the login page or
the create account page: it's all one.
* New users get to see the same screen that they will see when they (hopefully)
come back later, after they have created an account. (Giving new users one form
to fill in the first time and then a *different* form the second and subsequent
times really confuses them. I've seen this in action quite a few times now - my
users are not computer savvy; many are elderly.
But the current arrangement is also bad because:
* Too much clutter confuses people, even returning users to begin with.
* New users figure out the username and password part, but often don't get the
need to put the password in twice. Then they come back the next day and try to
put it in twice *again*. It confuses the hell out of them.
That's why I kept the single page, but laid the screen out as you see, with
those gentle hints here and there. "I have an account already" next to the log
in button, for example. So far, it seems to have been a success. I've trialled
it on a couple of new users (i.e., watched over their shoulder and not prompted
them, just let them work stuff out for themselves) and it seems to work much
better than the MediaWiki default or the other versions I've tried out.
Tony
I am sure others will be along shortly with a better explanation, but can you not remove the other skins? That way, the users can choose as many times as they like, but will only be able to choose 'monobook'.
That way, if you decide to change in the future, you can reinstall other skins as required.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: mediawiki-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
[mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of _tonneti
Sent: 29 June 2005 15:09
To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
Subject: [Mediawiki-l] only one skin
hi people, i am learning about the media wiki use and i am asking if exist a
way to have only de default template, monobook, i want this to have a site with a unique identiti or style, then, can i set media wiki to have only this skin and users cant select aother skin??
thanks ;)
--
_tonneti_bennedeti_bonneti
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
This email and any attachments have been virus checked upon receipt at Ordnance Survey and are free of all known viruses.
This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.
Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 023 8079 2000
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
Hi there-
I've done some searching and seen some mock-ups, and a few hints that
people have succeeded, but does anyone have a concrete guide for how
to integrate some kind of forum software into mediawiki to replace the
talk pages?
Or I guess a second best would be the ability to easily (e.g. via
interwiki?) integrate a seperate forum site into mediawiki links, and
also an easy way to create wiki-like links in the forum posts that
link back to the wiki.
Any suggestions appreciated-
Regards
Julian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
All:
I am currently using Mediawiki 1.4x. I would like only registered
users to Edit content (I know how) but allow even anonymous users to
post comments (use discussion). Is there any way of doing this?
Regards
Sarath
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCwltjELS7qLO1VaoRAsrRAJ4+Z7sEtnghIOlPohK0PPYX9e/XIgCeL3LT
liRu8KspOLbLraPQSp63SKs=
=IQBl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Is there a simple way to extract basic data from a MediaWiki install from
*outside* the main scripts?
For example, suppose you need to have an ordinary static HTML page, but have it
access the current NUMBEROFARTICLES from the wiki. (This is for a situation
where the wiki is part of a larger site, not the entire site in itself.
Something along the lines of "while you are here, check out our wiki, which has
NUMBEROFARTICLES articles".)
Obviously, the page would need a little bit of PHP code to do this - which
doesn't sound difficult in itself - but I am unsure of what I'd need to do to
persuade the MediaWiki scripts that it OK to provide this information.
Thanks for any help,
Tony
This isn't directly related to using MediaWiki, but I'll ask anyway.
I've been trying out the new external editor feature in 1.5. I like
the idea, but it needs smoothing out. (example, an external URL
argument, so it doesn't have to be set in user preferences?)
Is there a way to configure VIM to highlight Wikitext?
Also, is there a FireFox plugin to handle the
application/x-external-editor MIME type? I would write it myself, but
I have no clue as to the mechanisms involved or anything. It just
appears to be doing things by extension instead of MIME when it comes
to unknown types.
-- Jamie
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://endeavour.zapto.org/astro73/
Thank you to JosephM for inviting me to Gmail!
Have lots of invites. Gmail now has 2GB.
Our ISP-served wiki (running MediaWiki 1.3.11) went down due to this
error:
SQL error: User 'our_wiki' has exceeded the 'max_questions' resource
(current value: 50000)
The ISP support assured me we did indeed exceed 50K
questions/connections in one hour, and that this went on for over 12
hours until they increased our limit to 80K questions/hour.
Is this an expected level of database connections for a wiki with 1500
articles and about 400 visitors/day?
Would the number of connection requests be any lower using release
1.4.x?
The ISP suggested we create a second db user and change the code to
switch between them for accesses so that we avoid hitting the limit. I
guess this would mean changing Database.php but it seems very kludgy.
Any thoughts on that would be appreciated.
Michelle
Thanks for the info. See, my main problem is that I'm deploying this to a company that isn't necessarily techie. When they upload a PDF, they don't want to call it an Image or a Media. They want to call it a document, or at the least, a file.
-----Original Message-----
From: mediawiki-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Hínandil
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:41 PM
To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Changing Image to File
Zain Memon wrote:
> The default Uploadtext says that you should use a tag in the form
> [[{{ns:6}}:image.jpg]] to link to an image. When this Uploadtext is
> displayed on the actual Upload page, the {{ns:6}} displays as "Image".
> Does this mean that there is one place somewhere (called ns:6) where I
> can change "Image" to "File" so people can link to it as
> [[File:image.jpg]] instead?
>
> _______________________________________________
> MediaWiki-l mailing list
> MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
>
>
Well, no. ns:6 is a variable that is called Image in MediaWiki in
English. The Image namespace is called different things in other languages.
The way it works is that you can link with [[Image:image.jpg]] to
display a thumbnail, and if you want to link to a non-image, you use
[[Media:image.jpg]] (or [[Media:foobar.mp3]], etc.).
If you want to make an inline link, you'd prefix either of those with a
colon, like [[:Image:image.jpg]].
You *can* change the name of the namespace but I think it will break all
existing links.
Hínandil
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
The default Uploadtext says that you should use a tag in the form
[[{{ns:6}}:image.jpg]] to link to an image. When this Uploadtext is
displayed on the actual Upload page, the {{ns:6}} displays as "Image".
Does this mean that there is one place somewhere (called ns:6) where I
can change "Image" to "File" so people can link to it as
[[File:image.jpg]] instead?