Why don't we use the WikiEditor extension(http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WikiEditor) in BetaArchive for the wiki?
This extension makes it easier to edit on the wiki.
and/or even the VisualEditor extension(http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:VisualEditor)? I know it is in beta through , but it is like a WYSIWYG editor.
EDIT 1:- The WikiEditor extension appears to be already included , but it is not loaded because the required startup entry is not in the PHP file.
WikiEditor extension?
Re: WikiEditor extension?
dont bother , nothing ever gets done about the wiki anyway
Re: WikiEditor extension?
The staff did add the cite extension feature.dans34 wrote:dont bother , nothing ever gets done about the wiki anyway
"We do not view the desktop as a mode, legacy or otherwise."
Windows Vista: Microsoft Speech Center | Windows Vista Saved Search chronicle
Windows Vista: Microsoft Speech Center | Windows Vista Saved Search chronicle
Re: WikiEditor extension?
and yet havent updated for the last two releases & dont actualy bother to delete unused pages
Re: WikiEditor extension?
They also have to manage other parts of the site, such as the FTP and forum. I do share your frustration, though.dans34 wrote:and yet havent updated for the last two releases & dont actualy bother to delete unused pages
"We do not view the desktop as a mode, legacy or otherwise."
Windows Vista: Microsoft Speech Center | Windows Vista Saved Search chronicle
Windows Vista: Microsoft Speech Center | Windows Vista Saved Search chronicle
Re: WikiEditor extension?
Seriously, I find all the "visual" editors for Wikis pretty crappy. They work ok for long streaks of regular text, but then again you can do this easily in the edit textbox already.
As soon as you want something only slightly more advanced, like images with special formatting (thumb, frame), tables or templates, they either don't work at all or produce hilariously bad WikiMarkup intermingled with regular HTML.
Wiki markup is not that difficult to learn, and there's tons of resources to be found through Google.
As soon as you want something only slightly more advanced, like images with special formatting (thumb, frame), tables or templates, they either don't work at all or produce hilariously bad WikiMarkup intermingled with regular HTML.
Wiki markup is not that difficult to learn, and there's tons of resources to be found through Google.
I upload stuff to archive.org from time to time. See here for everything that doesn't fit BA
Re: WikiEditor extension?
I wholeheartedly agree. I find that I can contribute much more efficiently with the wiki markup than I can with a "visual editor". I am so used to wiki markup that I occasionally find myself rewriting forum posts because I unintentionally use it to format the post (e.g., '''bold''' instead of bold).Darkstar wrote:Seriously, I find all the "visual" editors for Wikis pretty crappy. They work ok for long streaks of regular text, but then again you can do this easily in the edit textbox already.
As soon as you want something only slightly more advanced, like images with special formatting (thumb, frame), tables or templates, they either don't work at all or produce hilariously bad WikiMarkup intermingled with regular HTML.
Wiki markup is not that difficult to learn, and there's tons of resources to be found through Google.
"We do not view the desktop as a mode, legacy or otherwise."
Windows Vista: Microsoft Speech Center | Windows Vista Saved Search chronicle
Windows Vista: Microsoft Speech Center | Windows Vista Saved Search chronicle