hi, i am testing my new wiki but have some problems with some options in
many sections of the wiki, i have this type os message when i want to try
the special pages, for example "all pages" "my contributions" and other
ones, this is the message>
(SQL query hidden)
El error de retorno de MySQL fue"1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax
near 'INDEX (usertext_timestamp) WHERE page_id=rev_page AND
rev_user_text='Tonneti' at line 5 (sql7)".
i am using 1.5beta4, can this be a bug...¿?¿
greets ;)
--
_tonneti_bennedeti_bonneti
On 8/13/05, Sy <sy1234(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I have completed two projects which can now intermingle.
>
> I designed a simple set of templates to allow weblog-style articles --
> namely for permanent links and discussion.
>
> Also, borrowing ideas from existing calendar templating, I created a
> series of templates which interact to generate a calendar.
Hi
Your urls seems to be down at the moment, so I can't look into.
In my opinion a real blogging system should be used for weblog entries.
Therefore I made some experiments with the Roller Weblogger system:
http://www.rollerweblogger.org
I started to integrate a roller plugin which transforms the Wikipedia
syntax input into HTML.
Here you can see a development version (sorry, but only in german):
http://www.bliki.info
The advantage of such a system is that you have all the default
built-in roller features plus the Wiki syntax input option.
--
Axel Kramer
http://www.plog4u.org - Wikipedia Eclipse Plugin
At 8/12/2005 10:07 AM, Mike Valstar wrote:
>you might want to wait for 1.5, it should be out soon, its on beta 4 right now
I'm under the impression I need to upgarde to 1.4.7 now if I want to use
the email notification module. Is this correct?
Does anyone have any further info? Or is it all in the 1.4.7 package
upgrade docs?
Details below.
-Matt
>>I want to upgrade my 1.4.0 site to the best stable version; this appears
>>to be 1.4.7.
>>
>>I have yet to look at the UPGRADE file in the download pack (only because
>>I have a few minutes to write this preliminary note), but I thought I
>>would ask the group what else I should be reading just in case there's
>>something pertinent.
>>
>>Any recommendations?
>>
>>Any procedures I need to follow that are not documented anywhere? If so,
>>can someone provide them here?
>>
>>I see:
>>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Upgrading_MediaWiki
>>
>>and a reference saying "Versions since 1.4.0 have the ability to run an
>>in-place upgrade script from the command line, keeping your existing
>>LocalSettings.php"...but I'm not sure if this means that 1.4.0 includes
>>this capability or if this means that only revs *above* 1.4.0 has this
>>capability. Can anyone clarify?
>>
>>Thanks for any help,
>>-Matt
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>MediaWiki-l mailing list
>>MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MediaWiki-l mailing list
>MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
On 14/08/05, Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote:
> Since this is not tied to the Wikimedia Foundation projects, but
> suggestions for a bunch of technical extensions to the MediaWiki
> software, I guess I should move it over to mediawiki.org, right?
> I'll give the ideas a little more time to mature first.
As far as I know, meta is still seen as the place for MediaWiki
development documents - or is someone planning to do a mass
export-import-and-redirect job for all the stuff already there? Browse
from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:MediaWiki for some idea
of how much is there.
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
On 14/08/05, Matt England <mengland(a)mengland.net> wrote:
> >1) There is already no need to keep going back to a web page to create
> >the initial import. [...] create the initial content locally, save a
> >copy in case something goes wrong [which it hasn't yet, but I'm used
> >to Murphy's law], and then copy/paste it into the edit box, and post
> >it. "Initial revision" is usually my tag for those imports.
>
> I don't follow this point, unfortunately. :(
I think this is in response to your comment about preferring to use
another editor for the initial version of content, but then edit in
the wiki later - the idea being that you type Wiki-markup in whatever
editor you prefer, and paste it to the wiki in one big "edit". Of
course, this loses any approximation of wysiwyg formatting which
either your editor or MediaWiki would otherwise provide, so it
probably misses the point to some degree.
> Meanwhile I see lots of other work/references to create wiki-markup
> editors. Seems like they are trying to solve the same problems. Why not
> just make an external markup language, possibly in the form of a XML-based
> DTD...like DocBook??
Because this doesn't solve the central problems, it just adds a layer
of complexity; the real problems being:
* In terms of export / editting, parsing wikitext reliably; the actual
MediaWiki code for this is an ugly mess of regexes, which output
"correctly" only because they define what the correct output is.
Whether you're trying to output HTML, DocBook, "an external markup
language" (how is wiki-syntax not "external"?) or just an in-memory
representation for WYSIWYG/automated manipulation, you've still got to
parse the real wikitext.
* In terms of import / saving, creating a "sane" piece of wikitext
without sacrificing richness of format - this is of course essential
if the text is to be meaningfully editted "by hand" within the wiki.
For an inline editor, this includes making tools which closely match
the features available to someone typing in wikitext; for a converter,
or a set of macros for something like Word, it means outputting
something which isn't bloated with meta-information which a human
editor would not have put there (i.e. the opposite of MS Office's HTML
exporters).
That said, one of the sub-discussions of the occasional ponderings of
"standard wiki markup" has been the idea of a "Wiki interchange
format" with importers and exporters available for all markup
variants; this would at least mean someone could write a
wiki-software-agnostic "Word<->wiki converter" or whatever.
So much for what not to do, what *should* we/you/anyone do?
My own approach would probably be to look at some existing and
relatively straight-forward format such as RTF (or, I guess, HTML,
although that probably covers a wider range of actual formattings),
and attempt to write a "simplifying converter" - where markup has
become bloated by export from a feature-rich editor, extract the
general gist (e.g. "this is a heading") and create appropriate markup
for that in Wikitext. While not ideal, a lossy converter like this
would probably be fine for "initial import" conversion - you write the
code in Word, export it mostly in tact (via RTF, or maybe just through
macros) to wikitext, and then tidy it up within the wiki.
If you want people to be able to repeatedly "check out" the document
into some other editor, it seems more sensible to me to essentially
make your own editor - even if that takes the form of a customised MS
Word which can only do wiki-like things, so there's no risk of loss on
conversion. Taking that view leads to the question of what you want to
offer with this editor - familiarity? WYSIWYGness? particular
features? - and thus to something which may not resemble
"import/export" after all...
Meanwhile, though, there are already things which people have done,
including various wikitext parsers, a few reasonably operable editors,
and even a few attempts at exactly the kind of importer being
discussed. Pages to explore before heading out on your own:
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_tools
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers
As ever, it seems there is scattered information which it would be
very useful to collect together...
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
I don't know of any actual settings for this, but it has been hacked in.
Basically, work off of the SVG code.
On 8/14/05, Pierre Belzile <pierre.belzile(a)idilia.com> wrote:
> We generate many images using "dia" (e.g., UML diagrams). We can convert
> these diagrams to "png" and upload them. Unfortunately, the original
> source is not archived. In an ideal world, I would upload the "dia"
> source and the png would be generated. This is close to the "graphviz"
> extension except that it requires that the code be "inline" in the page.
> "dia" or "inkscape" files tend to be too large for that to be
> convenient.
>
> Does anyone know of a way to use the core functionality or a known
> extension to obtain this?
>
> Thanks. Pierre
-- Jamie
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://endeavour.zapto.org/astro73/
Thank you to JosephM for inviting me to Gmail!
Have lots of invites. Gmail now has 2GB.
Not to do a blatant plug here or anything (as I like MediaWiki far better
and 9/10 wikis I run/own are MediaWiki - mainly because of the awesome
plugin architecture) but my brother runs the http://EditMe.com wiki company
which, besides being ridiculously easy to use and dirt cheap, is also HTML
based which might make MS-Save-As-Crap-HTML -> Wiki a bit easier. EditMe is
a bit better suited to the "I refuse to learn anything" corporate crowd and
has a very easy to use MS Word type editing environment. He'll work with you
on corporate installations if using it over the web isn't an option.
He's been making noise for a few years about Open Sourcing editme if that
matters - he just never seems to get around to it.
RE The HTML->Wiki Code... it'd probably be fairly trivial (naivety sucks :)
to write some XSLT that'd translate XHTML -> Wiki code (note, I said XHTML,
not HTML, so, in short, tidy(html) ) and then wrap that in an extension.
-ben
On 8/13/05, Matt England <mengland(a)mengland.net> wrote:
>
> At 8/13/2005 08:20 PM, Kyle Hamilton wrote:
> >If you can write a
> >preprocessor (implemented either locally or on the server) to convert
> >Word-format to Wiki markup, that would be your best bet.
>
> I suspect I seek something to this end.
>
> Ever tried to take a word doc and make all the sections/styles convert to
> MediaWiki markup? It looked far from simple to me. Further, a
> Word-styles-to-wiki-styles pre-determined format looks like it would need
> to be setup.
>
> > (Frankly,
> >I'm not sure what Word's format is at this point, nor how easy it
> >would be to implement such a preprocessor.)
> >
> >Now, in response to your individual points:
> >
> >1) There is already no need to keep going back to a web page to create
> >the initial import. All of this can be done locally (and, in fact,
> >that's what I've been doing with my own wiki, documenting the fbmuck
> >project at Sourceforge -- create the initial content locally, save a
> >copy in case something goes wrong [which it hasn't yet, but I'm used
> >to Murphy's law], and then copy/paste it into the edit box, and post
> >it. "Initial revision" is usually my tag for those imports.
>
> I don't follow this point, unfortunately. :(
>
> >2) ...so why don't you create some Word/PPT macros to convert the
> >formatting to Wiki markup, and then follow the recommendation in #1?
>
> I or someone else may have to go do that. See above.
>
> >4) XML is far too complex for what the wiki is designed to do.
>
> I don't follow this, either...but I certainly appreciate the signficant
> response(s). :)
>
> >Remember, wiki was designed to solve a problem: collaborative editing
> >in a low-requirement, low-capability environment.
>
> For what it's worth, I've done an extensive study on all the wiki software
> I could find, and TWiki and MediaWiki were always at the top of the
> list(s)
> for all the features and capabilities that I could find (although MW is
> poor in the import/export and ACL areas, but that's about it) in wiki's.
>
> In other words, MW is the cream of the crop, imho, at least given the
> current state of the art/technology/industry in open-source land, anyway.
>
> > If you want
> >collaborative editing of Word documents and your users refuse to
> >switch, use Visual SourceSafe and Word's built-in collaboration
> >capabilities. Granted, they're feature-poor, and if a document that's
> >designed to be placed on the web isn't stripped before doing so, some
> >very embarassing things can be found by anyone who loads the document
> >and turns on the collaboration views.
>
> Yep, they suck. :)
>
> >Again, as Mr. Vibber wrote, MW isn't designed to be used on an
> >intranet. "Why force the world to come to you?" you ask... well, it's
> >because of the nature of the beast.
>
> Meanwhile I see lots of other work/references to create wiki-markup
> editors. Seems like they are trying to solve the same problems. Why not
> just make an external markup language, possibly in the form of a XML-based
> DTD...like DocBook??
>
> >I'm the equivalent of a manager for an open-source project, but I
> >understand that it's often like herding cats, and our decisions have
> >to be made by consensus rather than any Word From On High), we don't
> >have managers who refuse to change or learn (if we did, we'd boot
> >them, because if they can't keep up, they're dead weight), most of us
> >don't have business models to attempt to create and maintain, most of
> >us don't have a motivation for money...
>
> To clarify: the point of corporate managers as a user audience was in
> response to Jan Steinman's comments. This was not an attack on MediaWiki.
>
> Nonetheless, the point stands: MediaWiki is being used for corporate
> intranets all over the place, and it's intruding on TWiki's
> turf. MediaWiki can continue to say "we don't want to do that" if they
> want, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just want the corporate
> intranet features, and I'm willing support those who want to make
> add-ons/plugins that do such things.
>
> > (And since you're already planning on possibly forking MW to serve as
> >a Requirements Management software, you're already 3/4 of the way
> >there. :) )
>
> Well...I'm not sure *I'm* going to be doing it, but someone might. :) I'm
> in discussions with another startup company that's thinking about doing
> this.
>
> >I apologize if the tone of this mail sounds fairly harsh...
>
> No, doesn't seem that harsh to me. Lots of good info here. Do I request
> to much? I'm just trying to see what's out there, and so far, the answer
> is "not much." Hey, that's the facts, can't argue with that.
>
> Alas, however, I've seen enough references to content
> import/expert/conversion to think something *is* happening or might happen
> in the future. Anyone care to add to this thread?
>
> >The MediaWiki team didn't have to make the
> >code available (though if they hadn't, they wouldn't have acquired the
> >competencies that they now have). They most certainly didn't make it
> >available to be derided for their decisions.
>
> Is someone deriding someone/something else? I missed that part. I'm
> simply looking for info and trying to sell a point. I was miffed at
> someone (back in March) who essentially said "you don't know what
> collaborative editing is," but that person was not Kyle nor Brion.
>
> In fact, MediaWiki is one of my favorite tools, and it's been immensely
> useful to my startup organization (we've grown from 2 people to 17 in less
> then a year, and all our docs are MediaWiki based). I'm trying to make it
> better--or, to put it another way, add features to achieve my goals.
>
> >That being said, though, I'd love to see an HTML-to-WikiCode
> >translator that would take (for example) <ol> and <ul> and their
> >associated <li>'s and make them either '#' or '*' respectively. I'd
> >love to see something to convert <h1>text</h1> to =text=, and so on.
> >That way, among other things, MS Word would be able to use its "edit
> >HTML" mode (no matter how ugly it makes its HTML) and import it back
> >into the wiki, with Wiki Markup.
>
> Now we're talking. :)
>
> > I'll probably end up writing it
> >myself, since most of the documentation for my project is already in
> >HTML format.
>
> Want any donations? I'm afraid I can't contribute time or development (to
> much effort for my own company's software), but I can contribute nominal
> money, if that helps.
>
> -Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> MediaWiki-l mailing list
> MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
>
Inspiring indeed. And two-window editing will be most helpful for
translation and script-assisted proofreading as well (e.g., the
interwiki link checker interface).
SJ
On 8/14/05, Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote:
>
> After this bounced around at the Wikimania conference, I wrote up
> some ideas for how MediaWiki could be turned into a proofreading
> and publishing tool for scanned books on my user page on meta,
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LA2
>
> I'm very far from implementing this, but I think the collection of
> ideas could provide inspiration to others. Some of the
> components, such as the move away from a flat namespace in
> Wikibooks, more advanced upload/download functions, and two-window
> editing might be universally useful.
>
> Since this is not tied to the Wikimedia Foundation projects, but
> suggestions for a bunch of technical extensions to the MediaWiki
> software, I guess I should move it over to mediawiki.org, right?
> I'll give the ideas a little more time to mature first.
>
>
> --
> Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> _______________________________________________
> MediaWiki-l mailing list
> MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
>
--
++SJ
Sweet. I hope you can showcase more of the customization options in
your own MW blog... and that other examples pop up as well. I don't
know that MW is the ideal blogging platform (recent case in point: the
recent Wikimania blog [1]) but it's good that you are touching on
issues of transcluding and summarizing articles in various formats.
This is useful for a calendar or blogpost-overview, but also more
broadly for articles and timelines of varying levels of detail. A
timeline of human history[2], for instance, might need more than a few
different levels.
SJ
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Blog
[2] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikimania05/Workshop-EZ1
On 8/14/05, Bass, Joshua L <joshua.l.bass(a)lmco.com> wrote:
> That is amazing! We need more people doing things like this. I am going
> to play with what you have done.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mediawiki-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sy
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 1:59 PM
> To: mediawiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Mediawiki-l] [ANN] MediaWiki as a weblog, and calendaring.
>
>
> I have completed two projects which can now intermingle.
>
> I designed a simple set of templates to allow weblog-style articles --
> namely for permanent links and discussion.
>
> Also, borrowing ideas from existing calendar templating, I created a
> series of templates which interact to generate a calendar.
>
> The weblogging stuff is pretty simple. Here are the calendar features:
>
> * Per-cell display customizing. Display the number one, or something
> else like an image.
>
> * Per-calendar overall calendar styles. Colour your calendar different,
> choose different layouts.. whatever.
>
> * Per-calendar link generation. No links, links to calendars.. link
> generation can also be different depending on the cell in the calendar.
> 1 is different than 2 and can have a different kind of link generated
> for it.
>
> This means that I can:
>
> * create a plain calendar for August 2005.
> * create a calendar for August 2005 which is styled differently --
> colours, date positions etc.
> * create a calendar for August 2005 where each link points to a page
> unique to that day.
>
> I haven't bothered to extend the month-shaping templates beyond
> June/July/August[1] yet, since there are 28 of them, but the'll all get
> done in due time.
>
> [1] August 2005 is 31 days beginning on monday, June 2005 is 30 days
> beginning on wednesday.. every combination needs to have a template made
> for it.
>
>
> All of this is probably more easily done with extensions, but I decided
> to use MediaWiki's existing templating functionality.
>
> it all works for me. I took the time to document things so that the
> next person who comes along will hopefully have a lot of help.
>
>
> When my site's not down, the relevant links are:
>
> http://jrandomhacker.info/mw/index.php/MediaWiki_as_a_weblog
> http://jrandomhacker.info/mw/index.php/MediaWiki_calendar_templating
> _______________________________________________
> MediaWiki-l mailing list
> MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
> _______________________________________________
> MediaWiki-l mailing list
> MediaWiki-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
>
--
++SJ