proposal for new root-namespace (new wiki)

[This N°9]

This page and the other pages throughout entire new_wiki_layout:* namespace are just a template. Don't edit these pages.

The new pages should be laid out like these, but remove “new_wiki_layout:” from the page name first!

The 'home' page which will replace the original is basically a copy of this one, but of course the namespace has been removed. You can find it here: home

I think this information is a bit confusing. for pages like mbhp:module:din this might work. but not for pages like ':mbhp' etc. because the new and the old pages use the same name. In my eyes this is excatly the kind of thing that leads to messy results.

I propose this solution:

- namespace 'new_wiki_layout' stays untouched and serves as template as written above.

- introduction of a 'root' namespace, under which all new pages can be created. best would be a namespace that has not to be changed when the porting is finished.

some proposals for the root-namespace : ':page', ':root', ':midibox', ':mb', ':home'

Like this only the 'home' - page has to be renamed at the end, and the whole new wiki can be created in parallel to the old one with the proper links.

If this is found to be a good idea, I will offer to setup / port already existing stuff this way, and changing the information quoted at the start of this post (and update the page 'wikify')

[This N°9]

some more: redundant information:

'new_wiki_layout:template:module' vs. 'wikify:template:module'

'new_wiki_layout:template:project' vs. 'wikify:template:project'

[stryd_one]

Love your work man.

Yes it is confusing. I'll explain in a couple hours, after I do this job interview and upload your files ;)

[This N°9]

Yes it is confusing. I'll explain in a couple hours

don't forget to give a statement to my proposal, don't just explain the status quo. If it is confusing, I think the best would be to make it less confusing for everyone.  ;)

[stryd_one]

but not for pages like ':mbhp' etc. because the new and the old pages use the same name. In my eyes this is excatly the kind of thing that leads to messy results.

Yeh it was a stumbling block for me too! honestly, the only reason i didnt say something was that i didnt expect someone to invest that much time... and then.....

I propose this solution: I will offer to setup / port already existing stuff this way, and changing the information quoted at the start of this post (and update the page 'wikify')

Well shiiit, awesome!

There's only one thing I don't like: "new" wiki layout. It won't be "new" for long, and a couple yeas from now when we do a new wiki layout, what will we call that? The new new wiki layout? hehehe

I think the new_wiki_layout pages need to go into a new namespace called wiki_layout or something.

on a related note, the user spaces was a bit tricky, and even marked with a FIXME, so I think I have a solution...

Each user gets a namespace to store their files, like so

:root:community:this:*

They can create namespaces as required

:root:community:this:midi_mapper:boards_wiring.jpg

That way, whether the images are linked from the user_gallery page, or from the projects page (for finished projects), or from the communty page (for projects in progress), the files don't have to be moved around.

And yes, that link is real, sorry for the long wait!!

[stryd_one]

some more: redundant information:

'new_wiki_layout:template:module' vs. 'wikify:template:module'

'new_wiki_layout:template:project' vs. 'wikify:template:project'

Yeh, that was made wih the intention of the new_wiki_namespace being removed one day, I like your idea of keeping it around much better...It's a big job, I think you must be addicted to wiki or something, but it's great stuff!!

[This N°9]

Yeh, that was made wih the intention of the new_wiki_namespace being removed one day, I like your idea of keeping it around much better...

I see it the other way round, like:

removing the 'new_wiki_layout:template:module' and keeping the 'wikify:template:module', as this one will be needed in future for people who create new module (or project) pages. so the ':wikify' namespace is just the place where people can read how to do stuff for the wiki.

There's only one thing I don't like: "new" wiki layout. It won't be "new" for long, and a couple yeas from now when we do a new wiki layout, what will we call that? The new new wiki layout? hehehe

I think the new_wiki_layout pages need to go into a new namespace called wiki_layout or something.

I think the new_wiki_layout is just needed so long the new wiki will be in 'setup state'. once it is released, all the stuff still needed as information how to wiki can be moved in the ':wikify' namespace. all the basic pages will be there then, and no template for these will be needed no more.

what do you think (and all the others) about these proposals for the 'basic-namespace' ?

some proposals for the root-namespace : ':page', ':root', ':midibox', ':mb', ':home'

me personally like ':home' the best, for the simple reason that these pages are all in some kind subpages of 'home'.

here's my vision how the namespaces / pagenames finally should look:

-home   [in dev state, this page is called :home:home, to release the 'new wiki', just copy it's content to 'home' and remove ':home:home']

-:home:project:....

-:home:mbhp:din

-:home:mios32

..

..

-wikify

-:wikify:template:project

-:wikify:template:module

-:wikify:xxxx

It's a big job, I think you must be addicted to wiki or something

it's not that much work to port the existing struct of the new pages (if it's done now!), it's still just a few pages and links that have to be changed. to do it later would be a big job. and for me it's just a good way to learn dokuwiki, I have to setup one for a customer in my get-enough-money-to-live-job soon.

so if you give me a OK, I will change things this way. Maybe we need some other opinions?

on a related note, the user spaces was a bit tricky, and even marked with a FIXME, so I think I have a solution...

Each user gets a namespace to store their files, like so

:root:community:this:*

They can create namespaces as required

:root:community:this:midi_mapper:boards_wiring.jpg

That way, whether the images are linked from the user_gallery page, or from the projects page (for finished projects), or from the communty page (for projects in progress), the files don't have to be moved around.

I don't understand this completly. Isn't it possible to link files form anywhere to anywhere? For my part, I can see files and link them on my page, even if they belong to a completely different namespace. Why have to files to be moved arround?

UPDATE:

comment to the 'root' namespace for files:

basically I like the idea, but as I said, I don't like 'root' that much, 1st because it isn't the root (in the filebrowser you already have a [root]). I don't know yet if you like my namespace-concept, but if you do, I would propose to do it the same with the files, like:

'[root]:home:community:this:m...'

'[root]:home:mbhp:din:layout.jpg'

'[root]:home:picture_for_home.jpg'

'[root]:wikify:picforwikify.jpg'

so the files in the [root] could be general files like midibox-logo etcetc. , or no files at all. 

[stryd_one]

I think you're on fire man. If durisian agrees with your plan, I say go for it.

[nILS]

New root namespace: baze!

[Durisian]

Is [root] really required? (perhaps I've missed something) - given that no namespace is the root, it's kind of saying root:baze:community:etc:etc

Yeah, I created new_wiki_layout as temp namespace as a sounding board for ideas, which is now the place where the links for new pages are created (to make it easier for anyone to chip in) - most of the data in this namespace will be removed, but bits need to copied to the new wiki, such as the wikify stuff.

So if a [root] namespace is required, we need to make sure the links in the new_wiki_layout are updated to point at the right place.

[stryd_one]

Is [root] really required?

Well yeh... otherwise we can't have old and new pages existing simultaneously. Makes it hard to do new pages.

it's kind of saying root:baze:community:etc:etc

Well, there would be two of everything, an empty one as the design guideline:

:wiki_layout:community:etc

and the real one:

:root:community:etc

Yeah, I created new_wiki_layout as temp namespace as a sounding board for ideas, which is now the place where the links for new pages are created (to make it easier for anyone to chip in) - most of the data in this namespace will be removed, but bits need to copied to the new wiki, such as the wikify stuff.

That's where the problem comes in - some of it needs to stay, some needs to go; some needs to be duplicated, some will be replaced.... and the big problem with that, aside from the difficulty in creating the pages, is that once the overhauled pages are in-place, we'll have no guideline left over for future reference - which will have the effect that the wiki's content will slowly drift away from your design over time. Best to keep the layout pages permanently, and have the real content coexisting alongside it.

So if a [root] namespace is required, we need to make sure the links in the new_wiki_layout are updated to point at the right place.

this has volunteered for that job. Legend.

[nebula]

My 2 cents:

I personally vote against all namespaces. It makes linking a nuisance.

If we must use them, then all links should be fixed as we go, and there needs to be a Wiki page, linked from the top page, explaining the namespaces. 

(This is just my opinion, and anybody is of course welcome, even encouraged, to disagree)

[stryd_one]

All input is warmly welcomed. Not much point fixing the wiki if everyone hates it :D

There is a page explaining the namespaces, as part of the other documentation on how to document stuff on the wiki :)

The namespaces : in the links basically work the same way as a / in a filesystem. Similarly, it's especially handy when it comes to storing images and downloads on the pages... But if it's a problem then it should be considered....What was the nuisance you had with it?

[nebula]

All input is warmly welcomed. Not much point fixing the wiki if everyone hates it :D

There is a page explaining the namespaces, as part of the other documentation on how to document stuff on the wiki :)

The namespaces : in the links basically work the same way as a / in a filesystem. Similarly, it's especially handy when it comes to storing images and downloads on the pages... But if it's a problem then it should be considered....What was the nuisance you had with it?

I find that the overall extra work it creates outweighs the practical benefits.

Right now if we try to implement a namespace system, all links from ucapps, the forum, and elsewhere on the web get broken.

If a person (like me) is an occasional wiki contributor, and decides that the community could be well-served by creating a new page, they will need to familiarize themself with an established namespace convention instead of just writing a document and saving it.  Sometimes you see a person in a forum who posts some really great nugget of information, and so you tell them "dude, you should put that in the Wiki".  But if you want people to document stuff, you need to give them a clear path to do so, unencumbered by additional rules they must think about prior to sharing information.

The WWW itself is inherently flat in structure, but despite the huge number of web pages out there, we can generally get where we need quickly because of good search tools (like Google).  The MIDIbox Wiki's search engine makes it possible to find any page you might be looking for within MIDIbox, with no need for a hierarchal system, from a browsing perspective.

If we must move to a hierarchal system, it should probably be hierarchal in the same way a user is likely to browse the Wiki, otherwise it doesn't make sense.  For example, right now I might go top>projects>user Projects>MB-6582>baseboard parts, and then that page might have a link to the MBHP Bankstick principle, which is already integrated into the board.  So if we had namespaces, we would have a link like ../../../../MBHP/modules/bankstick.

With a flat namespace (which even works fine for a Wiki as huge as Wikipedia), I could just have just linked to "bankstick" and be done with it.  People who are contributing already have their brains full of component values, board layouts, ribbon pinouts, c and assembly code, and excuses for why they don't have time for their girlfriends, so anything that makes this stuff faster is appreciated.

The flat Wiki we have (mostly) had so far has been slowly but steadily becoming a better resource, and I can't see how rearranging/renaming all the pages and imposing new rules can do anything to improve that.

[stryd_one]

I find that the overall extra work it creates outweighs the practical benefits.

Right now if we try to implement a namespace system, all links from ucapps, the forum, and elsewhere on the web get broken.

Right now, because there is no defined structure, pages get added and removed and info moved....so we already have that problem ;)

But the structure could be flat or heirachical, whatever works best. I'll say before I go on, that I'm totally feeling where you're coming from; but I think that you're overestimating the health of the wiki now, and the difficulty of namespace linking.

If a person (like me) is an occasional wiki contributor, and decides that the community could be well-served by creating a new page, they will need to familiarize themself with an established namespace convention instead of just writing a document and saving it.  Sometimes you see a person in a forum who posts some really great nugget of information, and so you tell them "dude, you should put that in the Wiki".  But if you want people to document stuff, you need to give them a clear path to do so, unencumbered by additional rules they must think about prior to sharing information.

That's what the templates are for - the user doesn't have to think about it, just go to the appropriate section and paste in a template. Finding the appropriate section is a no-brainer thanks to the namespace listing, and the rest of that section (:wiki_layout namespace) which is there specifically to tell names how to do stuff. On top of that, the template already has a space allocated for pretty much everything i could think of documenting, so the need to create new pages would be rare.

no need for a hierarchal system, from a browsing perspective.

Not from a browsing perspective, but from a filing perspective it's heaps better. Take a look at the files on the wiki now... imagine that all those files were in a flat structure :/ It also highlights the need for a naming convention for the wiki regardless of flat vs hierachical structure. What a mess...

If we must move to a hierarchal system, it should probably be hierarchal in the same way a user is likely to browse the Wiki, otherwise it doesn't make sense. 

That was the first specification we had - it had to work like how users keep requesting it, with a start-end approach (of course you can always jump to the middle via the search engine)

For example, right now I might go top>projects>user Projects>MB-6582>baseboard parts, and then that page might have a link to the MBHP Bankstick principle, which is already integrated into the board.  So if we had namespaces, we would have a link like ../../../../MBHP/modules/bankstick.

That's a great example of one of the problems with the current structure. Banksticks aren't mb6582 specific, so info about them should not be filed under the 6582 pages. The link would be absolute, like /MBHP/modules/bankstick., no need to step back with ../../

With a flat namespace (which even works fine for a Wiki as huge as Wikipedia), I could just have just linked to "bankstick" and be done with it. 

well maybe yeh. but then what if we need another page about banksticks, say, mb6582 related (seeing as it's a different board)... Would it's new name follow a flat naming convention or a hierarchical namespace tree? Either way, it's something that the name has to learn. But it's not rocket science, it's already laid out in the wiki where it would go.

People who are contributing already have their brains full of component values, board layouts, ribbon pinouts, c and assembly code, and excuses for why they don't have time for their girlfriends, so anything that makes this stuff faster is appreciated.

Agreed 1000%. Ease of use is really important. Hindrance to documentation would could turn the 5 volunteers we have into 2. That's bad.

The flat Wiki we have (mostly) had so far has been slowly but steadily becoming a better resource,

Yeh but there's three times as much work going into maintaining it, as there is adding content :( That's a problem that requires a structure to follow, but it's nothing to do with flat/heirarchical approaches.

and I can't see how rearranging/renaming all the pages and imposing new rules can do anything to improve that.

Then you aren't cleaning up as much as me ;) I think that flat vs heirarchical is debateable, but the need for structure on that wiki is unquestionable IMO. Seen our THREE FAQs? hehehehe Sure the info is there, but it's a mess.

Thing is, on the very rare occasion that someone needs to make a new page, they will need to spend some time to maintain a healthy wiki, and that will either mean learning a namespace (tree view, familiar to newbies) or a naming schema (:root:MBHP:modules:AIN vs root_mbhp_modules_AIN). But yeh, that'd be rare.

[Durisian]

hey neb - objection noted :D

My biggest problem is that I refer to wiki as a quick reference tool. But it's more like a long and painful reference tool - as I pore through pages of data that may or may not have the information I need, and sometimes find conflicting info as procedures etc have been changed.

I did consider that creating rules would scare documentors, but the lack of rules is exactly what makes the wiki a mess.

I think asking documentors to learn a namespace structure (and really that's the only thing you need to learn) is a small price for good documentation.

We will make sure it's is very clear when the time comes.

As stryd mentioned the templates will make it easy -

hmmm, I should add all the module links to the project template so you delete unwanted ones - rather than add the ones you need.

I hope that with these templates it will encourage people to write the doco's - the hard part is already done, you just write about the specifics of your project.

As for the big stuff like - svn, toolchains and blah. All (i think) is listed in the new_wiki_layout, as for new stuff, well - There are only a handful of people who write this, mostly with far bigger brains than mine - i'm sure you guys can handle it :D

edit: There is the matter of the forum links etc - Did twinny install the redirect plugin?

[This N°9]

I did consider that creating rules would scare documentors, but the lack of rules is exactly what makes the wiki a mess.

I agree with that. If somebody wants to create a new page, (s)he just has to go to the page explaining the namespaces. this takes about 1 minute, I think writing a whole new page documenting for ex. a new project takes a bit more time, so learning about the namespace struct is really the smaller part.

and.. namespaces are not really a very complicated issue. everbody who uses computers is used to folder structures. so instead of having module_din etc. you jsut have module:din, which is not much difference. clear rules are easier to understand than no rules at all, or kind of rules that underly some strange arbitrariness. and if somebody oneday creates a page with a name outside this structure, it's a small job to move it to the right place.

Is [root] really required? (perhaps I've missed something) - given that no namespace is the root, it's kind of saying root:baze:community:etc:etc

I think this is a missunderstanding. forget about root, it's just about having a 'basic' - namespace for all pages 'on top' of home. I tried to explain my 'namespace-vision' here, it also explains why I vote for 'home' as the basic namespace:

me personally like ':home' the best, for the simple reason that these pages are all in some kind subpages of 'home'.

here's my vision how the namespaces / pagenames finally should look:

-home  [in dev state, this page is called :home:home, to release the 'new wiki', just copy it's content to 'home' and remove ':home:home]

-:home:project:....

-:home:mbhp:din

-:home:mios32

..

..

-wikify

-:wikify:template:project

-:wikify:template:module

-:wikify:xxxx

so the new_wiki_layout could be deleted when the 'old' pages are ported to the new struct/layout. all infos about how to edit/add wiki pages could be reached by 'wikify'. this then should be linked at a promintent place (I suggest 'home' !). Like

'If you want to edit or add wiki-pages, read this first: [[link to wikify]].

As said, reading the basic wikify-rules would take a user 5 minutes or so.

I personally vote against all namespaces. It makes linking a nuisance.

I can't understand this vote, if you wana link a page, you have to lookup it's name anyway, and in most cases, you will copy/paste this name. so if you copy 'module_din' or 'mbhp:module:din' is really no difference. And besides I don't understand why this issue comes to discussion now, there is already a namespace concept set up and documented, I don't know how it came to that, and if there was a discussion before this concept was set up, but I think it's a bit late to discuss this issue now?

New root namespace: baze!

why? what does it say? baze of what? I think there should be clear arguments why a namespace has just the name it has.

I think the discussion has gone into a direction that is blocking my wiki-work right now. I need some more statments and go's or no-go's.

[Twin-X]

why? what does it say? baze of what? I think there should be clear arguments why a namespace has just the name it has.

This was a joke. Maybe you should try to blend more in before starting anything. This way we would understand you better and "vica versa".

Hang out in the chat alot ond you will know what i reffering to.

[This N°9]

This was a joke.

ok, didn't get that. there's a lot of information floating arround, so I can't get every piece of that. this would be a 24 hours job  ;)

[stryd_one]

me personally like ':home' the best, for the simple reason that these pages are all in some kind subpages of 'home'.

Now that I think about it, you're right. It should be :home: .

all infos about how to edit/add wiki pages could be reached by 'wikify'.

Agreed again.

you have to lookup it's name anyway, and in most cases, you will copy/paste this name. so if you copy 'module_din' or 'mbhp:module:din' is really no difference.

Hot tip: Firefox extension "CoLT". Allows you to do cool stuff like copy links and reformat them for dokuwiki or bbcode for the forum.

Homepage: http://www.borngeek.com/firefox/colt/

Dokuwiki format to configure it for our wiki: [[%U|%T]]

This extension saves me a LOT of editing posts.

[This N°9]

so this is a 'go'? If yes I maybe find some time tomorrow (after sleeping)

[stryd_one]

It's a go from me. Anyone else better speak up quick if they want to stop you ;)

[Durisian]

go from me too

[This N°9]

It's a go from me. Anyone else better speak up quick if they want to stop you

right you are... it's too late now  :D

changes I made:

- moved already existing new pages (e.g. home:project:synthesizer:midibox_fm, home:mbhp:module:din)

- updated all templates under wikify:template: and new_wiki_layout:

- updated instruction information on new_wiki_layout / wikify

I'll check again in 1 hour or so if I missed something.

[This N°9]

@stry_one:

I'm not sure, but maybe It would make sense to change the 'root' namespace that you created in the file-manager also to 'home', to make the whole thing more consequent. now would be the time for that, because if there are lots of files already linked, it's much more work.