Project talk:Support desk/Archive 1

Users support desk
There would be a Users support desk, a System Administrators support desk and a Developers support desk. See User_hub.
 * If there's a lesson to be learned from the English Wikipedia, is that there is such a thing as having too many desks, and not enough volume to warrant them. Having more places to look for info just causes duplicated effort or missed discussions/replies. Titoxd (?!?) 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion about Wiki link format
But this form would also be useful and would use less text space in files (but does not seem to exist now):- That would e.g. allow ing|ed :: link to scuba diving, display scuba dived. Anthony Appleyard 08:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the name of an article is not the same as that name's invariant stem form, often when linking, the whole of the name (which may be long) must be repeated, e.g. scuba dived . That problem is worse in languages that have case endings, e.g. Russian. At the moment these forms are allowed:-
 * xxxx :: link to xxxx, display xxxx
 * yyyy :: link to xxxx, display yyyy
 * yyyy|zzzz :: link to xxxxyyyy, display xxxxzzzz.
 * Good idea --77.209.38.240 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but i whould suggest using a template instead, because your need is very specific and can be handled with a template, like, you need a couple of extensions to make the template work, but can be done!
 * --[[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|20px]]Hsilamot (Insults | Contributions) 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki in Wikimedia
I suggest create a Project:Wikimedia support desk about support for MediaWiki in Wikimedia projects. --77.209.38.240 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving resolved and "assumed-to-be" resolved questions
Is anyone going to freak out if we start actively archiving questions that have not had any activity for a while (like over a week)? I mean - we can pry safely assume that whoever asked the question is no longer monitoring this article for a response if it goes a week without feedback.

And I mean archiving questions where the original questions was responded to, but the original poster has not responded.


 * Is there any compilation/integration of answered questions into a general MediaWiki knowledgebase or whatever? I see recent discussions about creating such a system were archived but what was the result of those discussions? Otherwise, as Rick whoever mentioned, people will ask the same questions over and over since archives are rarely looked at... -Eep² 23:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno - I think if we fail to archive regularly the entire discussion becomes moot because nobody is willing to read it anymore. Archives are indeed rarely looked at, but the base article doesn't get looked at either.  As long as a few people are trolling the Support desk page regularly, we might as well just archive stale questions and let them be re-asked.  I mean, the true problem is the core documentation, isn't it?  Which is always being worked on.  What do you think?  Let the page become worthless?  Or archive to keep it clean and usable for more questions (mostly repetitive)? The entire wiki is a Knowledge Base - not this particular page, right?  I thought this was 'supposed' to be for one-off questions. --Tim Laqua 23:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My primary argument is that this is not a forum, it's a Wiki article where people can ask questions - there is no expectation of searchability - the Project: and Project_talk: namespaces aren't default search namespaces (and haven't been assigned to be default here). Why don't we just do our best to answer questions as they arise, expand the core documentation where needed, and archive answered questions? --Tim Laqua 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because, again, without some way of updating the current documentation with questions/answers from this and other talk/normal pages, it's essentially a never-ending exercise in futility. I'd rather just say "refer to " instead of rehashing the same reply over and over and, oh yes, still over again. Granted, I'm not a long-time regular here but this is a common problem in any support discussion forum (MediaWiki-related or not). However, in my days when I was into Active Worlds a lot, people who had object/model scripting-related questions would usually be diverted to specific links on my website that answered/covered their questions. The same could be done here (only to this and other Wikimedia-related websites, of course) but only if said links are updated with questions/answers from this and other related discussion/forum/talk pages/articles/whatever--otherwise we're "doomed to repeat". -Eep² 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So... we should create a Project:Asked and Answered page - then call that the "answered archive" and only archive stale, unanswered, ignored questions in this page's archive? Answered Questions go there? --Tim Laqua 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's necessary. Instead, I believe the relevant site sections should be updated to reflect the questions (if the sections don't already address them). Basically, better organization of the site to reduce/remove duplicate/impartial coverage of topics (and the frustration involved in finding answers to questions) needs to occur. As others have already mentioned, the manual, FAQs, project pages, etc, contain duplicate info that should be consolidated. Categorizing such articles/sections is a first step in reducing/removing this duplication, but actually editing the pages in question is going to be necessary. It doesn't help that a movement from Meta is occurring now either...and that there is a conflict between its help files and this site's help files. I think MediaWiki sites need one (1) source of help files to be referenced from (with links to them in new MediaWiki installations by default)--this includes Wikipedia which also contains a lot of duplicate help file info. -Eep² 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotcha... So the core documentation needs to be worked on and we should take queues from commonly asked questions here to determine what needs to be addressed first in the core documentation. That still means we can agressively archive stuff here, right?  ;-) --Tim Laqua 03:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cues, queues, clues--whatever, so long as the information isn't buried only to resurface in questions later. :P -Eep² 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

REDIRECT FAQ Discussion to this page?
The FAQ Discussion seems to get occasional Support desk questions - How about we migrate those questions over to Support desk, archive answered and stale questions, then redirect the FAQ Discussion over to Support desk? Maybe just migrate over here and put a template pointing to Support desk for Questions at the top of the FAQ Discussion... I'm a fan of redirection - most people just click through and ignore the notices.

Further - how about migrating answered questions here over to the FAQ page if they appear to have future worth? --Tim Laqua 15:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A central repository of support would make it easier to manage, though the volume would require more upkeep. -Eep² 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Same amount of upkeep as the existing two-page style - only less people look at the FAQ Disc. I noticed Rob over there pretty regularly.  --Tim Laqua 20:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
I posted another question (Project:Support_desk) and it doesn't seem to be displaying - presumably because the article has just grown that long. Is it in need of some archiving? I don't know the standard protocol for that, so it's not something I'd do myself. 68.80.149.10 00:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like I got it to display. Not sure why it wasn't doing it before...according to the history and  s, it was saving the text. 68.80.149.10 21:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How to categorise the support desk?
I`m not sure that the support desk is in the right category. It is in Category:Help, which intially seems to make sense, but that category page that it is only for pages in the help namespace (which is otherwise true, except for Project:Help}. Anyways, should this page be recategorised, or is there some kind of exception for the desk? If so, I`m not quite sure where it "fits" below the top level.--Brian 09:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think its fine. I think it kind of just so happens that most pages in the Help category, the category for pages supplying help, are Help namespace pages. -- Anon  Diss  09:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A way to bump threads?
Wikia has that feature and it might be a good idea to implement so that comments are bumped to the top after being edited. PatPeter 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

DschosCalender
For some reason why I try to edit this one section I get this:

DschosCalendar
Hello All. I recently installed MediaWiki on a SME server I have running. The installation went smoothly, and we already have users starting to play with it. However, I attempted to install the Dschos Calendar, I was unsuccessful. I created the DschosCalendar.php and calendar_template.html files using touch and pico as requested in the documentation below.

>Copy DschosCalendar.php and calendar_template.html into the extensions/ directory. Then, I attempted to follow the directions below. The first request went fine. When attempting to edit the "MediaWiki:Calendar-url" I found it did not exist. Do I just create it? That is what I tried, and the calendar still does not show up.

''>You might want to edit the sidebar: just edit the page MediaWiki:Sidebar, add a line '** calendar-url|calendar', then edit >the page MediaWiki:Calendar-url to contain just the string Special:Calendar, and the page MediaWiki:Calendar to contain just >the string Calendar. This will add the calendar to your navigation menu on the left side.''

Lastly, I attempted to follow the instructions below:

''>Changes to LocalSettings.php >require_once("$IP/extensions/DschosCalendar.php");''

Putting the line at the top of the script caused MW to crash. Puttin it under the existing "require_once" line also did not correct the problem.

If someonw would lead me in the correct direction, I'd gladly edit the install page to better assist non PHP programmers (like myself) to get this working.

Chris Curtis

It seems like the exact same thing but if I delete one of them completely different content appears. -PatPeter, MediaWiki Support Team  17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And now that I have taken out a copied section I get this, but when I try to edit it I get the information above:

* Apache: 1.3.39 (Unix) * URL: www.abilitymultimedia.co/MediaWiki

After a "successful" installation, this is the error I get when I try to access the index.php page.

Warning: require(/home/abilitym/public_html/MediaWiki/includes/JobQueue.php) [function.require]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/abilitym/public_html/MediaWiki/includes/AutoLoader.php on line 302

Fatal error: require [function.require]: Failed opening required '/home/abilitym/public_html/MediaWiki/includes/JobQueue.php' (include_path='/home/abilitym/public_html/MediaWiki:/home/abilitym/public_html/MediaWiki/includes:/home/abilitym/public_html/MediaWiki/languages:.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/abilitym/public_html/MediaWiki/includes/AutoLoader.php on line 302 —76.27.200.155 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's saying the JobQueue.php is missing from the includes dir - check if it's there and readable, and if not, replace that file or try unpacking the codebase files again. --Nad 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of this page
Seriously, it's near impossible to leaf through this page and therefore get any decent and well considered support efficiently and swiftly. -- Anon  Diss  08:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? -PatPeter, [[Image:Tournesol.png|20px]] MediaWiki Support Team  16:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the mega-sectioned layout, the messy heady + introduction, and the way sections are being marked "resolved" ("(RESOLVED)" in the section header; a template could work a lot better for this for use in the section itself, much like w:template:resolved. Anon  Diss  11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please go ahead and make it/import it. The sections were made (by me) in response to the discussion here. I am not the best at creating intricate template syntax like ... I am trying to find one of those on Wikipedia if you know what I am talking about where they guide you through one colorful page to another (link to one if you do know what I am talking about this is driving me crazy), but I stated in Project talk:Support desk/Support team that I would need help making the Support desk look better, as I could and did do all the moving and linking and whatnot. -PatPeter, [[Image:Tournesol.png|20px]] MediaWiki Support Team  22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like this. -PatPeter, [[Image:Tournesol.png|20px]] MediaWiki Support Team  22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Something similar to w:WP:AN would also be helpful, really. Complicated superheadings don't really help anyone. -- Anon  Diss  07:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is our header really that complicated? -PatPeter, [[Image:Tournesol.png|20px]] MediaWiki Support Team  00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New support desk not being used
The support desk was very active before the recent structural changes, but nobody is posting any questions any more, so perhaps a more intuitive or simpler format needs to be used. I don't know what the best structure may be, but I miss giving my daily half-hour of support and much preferred doing it here than at #mediawiki. --Nad 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the restructure completely turned many people off (including myself, actually). I much preferred having it on one simple page, albeit it needed a better method of searching past archived topics. --Skizzerz talk - contribs 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss this here. -PatPeter, [[Image:Tournesol.png|20px]] MediaWiki Support Team  00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As for how active it is now, I still have a couple dozen new edits on my watchlist everyday; have you clicked all the links at the top of this page? You can still give support, I think what you are feeling/conveying/saying is that the Support desk is overwhelming in where to give support, I would suggest taking one section at a time. Remember the overall goal for us should be to make the manual so easy to read that people don't need to ask questions. Take Extensions for example, I know I have made a couple good edits to a couple extension pages from support questions now that they are easier to see. -PatPeter, [[Image:Tournesol.png|20px]] MediaWiki Support Team  01:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I came to this page for the first time today to find an answer to a configuration question. I didn't find the answer, so I posted a new question. Overall, I found the process to be awkward and inconvenient. I'm accustomed to searching the Usenet for this type of support, and I think Google Groups is a much better interface than the one you've created here. I love MediaWiki to death, and I think it's a great tool for many applications, but I'm not sure a knowledgebase is one of them. If you're considering a different format, have you thought about making a Usenet newsgroup? -TC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.106.184.113 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 March 2008. Please sign your posts!
 * Could you link to Usernet and Google Groups? And you do know that MediaWiki was made for a knowledge base? i.e. Wikipedia? And when you said "came to this page" you mean came to the site right? Because we have an entire manual here. -PatPeter, [[Image:Tournesol.png|20px]] MediaWiki Support Team  02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The header included a link to the communication page, which links to the MediaWiki-l mailing list, but I've added in a direct link on the header. The mailing list is usually a better place to ask questions, since it has more people monitoring it and is easier to use (if you like email lists, anyway). —Emufarmers(T 05:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)