Hi all,
I started this discussion. I don't know where it is heading for now.. :)
As a layman, I wonder why such a robust software like mediawiki doesn't
provide some nice search features!
It boasts of many other features.....
Even any simple php-MySQL application provide some kind of advanced
search features (without Lucene or similar stuff) like search in title
or full-text, search for all the words (AND) or any of the words (OR) or
exact phrase, etc.
I don't know what prevents developers from providing these features..
Could someone explain please?
Regards,
Jack
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: mediawiki-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Michael
Daly
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:30 AM
To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list
Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Making search "and" by default
Domas Mituzas wrote:
> They were experimenting with that lately. Thats how searching for
> 'domas' ended up with DOMA on top ;)
I recently searched on "Johann..." and google kept hitting "John..." and
other language equivalents. Google's searching can be annoyingly
non-specific at times. In any "advanced search" I'd like to tell it to
find/not find plurals or singulars, other languages etc. Google even
modifies the search parameters for quoted (i.e. exact text) terms.
Mike
_______________________________________________
MediaWiki-l mailing list
MediaWiki-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
This electronic mail (including any attachment thereto) may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Accordingly, if you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this email immediately and delete this email (and any attachment thereto) from your computer system...Thank You
Hi,
I think if use multiple word seach in MW, the default Boolean operator
used is "OR". How can we make it "AND"?
I wonder why MW, even being such a great s/w, not providing some
advanced search features built-in
Regards,
Jack Eapen C
SunTec Knowledge Centre
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"
This electronic mail (including any attachment thereto) may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Accordingly, if you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this email immediately and delete this email (and any attachment thereto) from your computer system...Thank You
I am seeing this PHP error in my Apache logs 10-15 times per day, out of
thousands of hits:
Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in
D:\mediawiki\w\includes\Database.php on line 797
which incidentally is the call to "mysql_query($sql, $this->mConn)" in
function doQuery().
The wiki pages in question are ordinary and shouldn't take 30 seconds to
render. The wiki server is pingable during these errors. The MySQL logs
show no errors. And almost all of the time, the wiki runs fine.
I'm sure there are a zillion possible causes. Any tips for isolating
the root cause? (This is on Windows 2003 Server.)
MediaWiki: 1.11.0
PHP: 5.2.2-dev (apache2handler)
MySQL: 5.0.27-community-nt
DanB
(Starting from
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-October/024031.htm
l)
>> Earlier: How can I set the default edit
>> history diff to show the entire section
>> being edited left and right, not just the few
>> lines surrounding displayed differences?
> Response #1: ...hack up DifferenceEngine.php
> to identify section breaks and add extra
> stuff to output...
Peter Blaise responds: Thanks for the pointer on one place to study the
issue:
...\mediawiki\includes\DifferenceEngine.php
> Response #2: ... wikEd has a library for
> embedding DIFFs into the page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff
Peter Blaise responds: From that page:
"...Unchanged regions of the text are omitted from the
output..."
... so I have the same challenge with wikiEdDiff - how to show
the ENTIRE comparison? So, I'm really trying to get a "comparison"
feature, not merely a "difference" feature.
COMPARE versus DIFF:
I think I am looking for a "COMPARE article/section versions in
toto" function, rather than, or as a supplement to, the current "DIFF"
function, which has only minimal lines immediately before and after any
differences.
DIFF DEPTH:
I think, however, I'd like to also have a toggle for punctuation
and white space differences, versus text content, in a diff display, so
"mere" commas and other punctuation do not generate a diff report line,
if I so choose. That would be a nice variable option in a "diff"
function - to control depth of diff analysis and display. So far, I see
a potential for three or four desired options for diffs:
- punctuation and/or white space on/off,
- text on/off,
- total comparison on/off.
That "total comparison" is the prime goal I am after at the
moment. Right now, in MediaWiki, I note that it's as if options one and
two above are on, and option three above is off. How to turn it on?
COMPARE ARTICLES:
Hey, it's a database that never throws anything away! What will
it take to compare anything in that history to anything else in that
history? Others here may have ideas for enhanced choices they are
looking for in a history difference display, or even a comparison
between articles. That is, wouldn't it be nice to compare live
MediaWiki articles, not just the historical editing differences
underneath only one article?
"Why," you might well ask? Well, I might well say ... when
cleaning up our wiki, I often come across articles that appear
redundant, maybe. I have to read them both. They appear to have
similar contents but slightly (or vastly) different names, say,
[[Chapter 700]] versus [[Chapter 0700]]. What are these? Which, if
either, is most current? Were these identical copies entered by
different people trying to superimpose their own different sense of
nomenclature order on the wiki? I don't know! The only way I can
figure out how to have MediaWiki help me compare them is to cut and
paste the contents of one article over the contents of the other
article, then do an edit history diff. If I could only do a diff
between live articles first, then that would save a step.
Also, such a "diff" feature comparing live articles would have
nice benefits for the regular end-user, allowing them to see live
comparisons between any live pages of their own choice and control. In
our case (law history), I can see a desire to compare current law pages
versus archive (old law) pages. Again, "Why," you might well ask? Well
... our wiki's prime namespace contains current legal decisions released
for comment on the discussion/talk pages. Before commenting, people
would like to compare the current release to past releases so they don't
re-make old suggestions, like, "Why don't we do such-and-such?" and
another person may say, "We tried that last time and it failed, don't
you remember the prior version?" It would be nice if the wiki, using
it's superlative database record keeping, offered to compare any stored
versions for the reader - an extension of the single-page "diff" feature
into an "any-pages" diff.
So, I'd like to create a wiki namespace for previous (retired)
law releases so these old pages do not come up in the current namespace
search or listings (why else hide articles in alternative namespaces?).
Putting old versions in separate namespaces would allow redundant
identical page names through time:
[[1stEdition:Chapter 700]]
[[2ndEdition:Chapter 700]]
[[3rdEdition:Chapter 700]]
But, my challenge is how to allow the visitor to compare two
live pages, one from each edition?
Right now, I use the single-page "diff" feature by carefully
uploading (editing) the 4th edition copy first and put it into the main
namespace, then uploading (editing) the 5th edition copy right on top of
it. I then have two, and only two, revisions in the diff history for
each article. Great. (Sort of ... for all my effort to upload the
entire older edition of the law, the older edition is lost down in the
single-page diffs, and is not searchable on it's own in it's own
namespace! Drat!) But, that takes care of the recent two versions of
that law release - versions I have ready access to original files. But,
when I finally find and want to upload an even older edition from the
ancient, off-line archives, how do I then put that older version
*behind* the current earlier history rather than on top of the latest
version? In other words, how to I edit the diff histories to put them
in the order I prefer? Simple:
- delete the entire page first and start from scratch!
- upload 3rd edition
- upload 4th edition on top of it
- upload 5th edition on top of it
Whew!
Argh!
But, then, after all that careful building, anyone can compare
any edition using the single-page edit-history diff feature. And, of
course, the earlier, now buried editions are not searchable.
... if I could merely upload each antique archive edition to
it's own namespace...
... and if I had a live article comparison feature...
... then the visitor could compare anything on their own!
Thanks for reading through all this, and thinking about the
potential generated by the "diff" feature. It's all just tools, and I
suppose we each are just building surprisingly different universes with
our various MediaWiki engines and extension tools. If anyone has any
energies to keep pursuing this idea, please share here
(http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l), or on
http://www.MediaWiki.org/ and let's see where this goes.
Hello list,
after upgrading mediawiki from 1.10 to 1.11 I got a problem accessing my content.
I added a second index.php with some different settings.
$wgScript is index.php
Whenever I try to access content over index2.php, the output is the mainpage:
http://wiki/index.php/ContentX -> ContentX
http://wiki/index2.php/ContentX -> Mainpage
but http://wiki/index2.php?title=ContentX works fine.
Can anyone help me making that work?
Carsten Schmidt
-----Original Message-----
From: fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 04:09 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Cc: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Conference of the Americas
Found on ibiblio's IRC channel a link to Wikimedia Conference of the Americas
http://www.cota-atlanta.org/
Their wiki:
http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki/Main_Page
Fred
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi:
If needed, change the following line in
SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi.class.php to suit the path
of your geshi.php file
require_once( 'geshi/geshi.php' );
that line does'nt exist there!
I am trying to upgrade form 1.5 to 1.7
After installing everything I attempt to import the sql backup.
I am getting this error.
ERROR 1146 (42S02) at line 12: Table 'mysql.time_zone_name' doesn't
exist
Is this table no longer in 1.7 ?
How do I solve this?
Thanks in advance!
Sean
Hi All,
I want to display first para of an article on my home page box-featured
article. Can I set some parameter like no. of characters or so, such
that I can translude, say 100 chars from an article on the home page and
then provide a "read more..." link?
Regards,
Jack Eapen C
SunTec Knowledge Centre
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt"
This electronic mail (including any attachment thereto) may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Accordingly, if you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this email immediately and delete this email (and any attachment thereto) from your computer system...Thank You