- Transfer content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borkum_Riff
- Pipe Articles
- Overwritten Files
- https://pipedia.org/wiki/Dunhill_Catalog_1951 rename files
- merge Alternative Woods Used For Pipe making & Alternative Woods Used For Pipemaking
Just noticed what you have done with the Indexes at the top of the American Pipe Brands & Makers lists. WOW! This is fantastic! I love how that works so much. Turned a cumbersome process into a very accessible way to explore and search. And I see your expanding that to the lists for other countries too. Thank you for that excellent solution and doing all the work! sethile
- I began to use templates which are incredibly helpful for this type of things. What I still try to figure out is how to implement note boxes as on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:Note. Magna (talk)
- I've been intending to make use of templates since the very early days of Pipedia, just never followed through with it! Super helpful to have you start in with them. I'll definitely try to follow your lead on that... The note boxes look really cool! Hopefully you get some clarity on how to implement those as well.
- It's very helpful to have your help and expertise raising the bar a bit! Happy Holidays! I think I will resolve to learn templates and just generally get better with harnessing the potential of Mediawiki in 2023. I feel like I've only been scratching the surface ;) sethile
- We are definitely only scratching the surface .. Mediawiki is such a huge application with so much features. But I think we only need some of these. My goal is to give the pages a somehow cleaner and more professional look. The information that has been gathered here is so valuable. Thank you for starting this project and I whish you a Happy Christmas! Magna (talk)
- Great! I will give it a try .. maybe tomorrow ;) Magna (talk)
- It works like a charm! (8-P)> Magna (talk)
Forgive me for using this "User Talk" field, but I don't have your email or any other way of contacting you. I see you've been making nice improvements on Dunhill's page and I'm happy for that. I see you deleted a lot of images today. Please, did you find something wrong? I'd be grateful if you'd give me the courtesy to communicate if you have to make any big changes.
Thank you. Greetings from Brazil. Yang: email@example.com
- Hi Yang! This "Talk"-Page is intended to be used for that! :)
- Don't worry! I havn't deleted any files. I just renamed the images of the Dunhill catalog of 1951 so others won't overwrite them. This has happened quite often (e.g. have a look at https://pipedia.org/wiki/File:001.jpg). So in general it would be smart to avoid filenames that just consist of numbers. I just have prefixed the catalog images by a proper name (but missed the one usage you fixed). BTW: you can sign your comment using ~~~. Magna (talk)
- That's nice, thank you for adjusting that.
- In fact, those that did not receive names were automatically added by the batch tool (the ones that were added one by one have names and, yes sometimes it is difficult to add more than 100 images one by one, you know?). Looking at the page closely you will notice that "smart" was not only a guide but a principle. ;)
- Thank you for your valuable tips. =T
- I realize that you are very intelligent, so I also know that you know that bugs are part of the life cycle of any application. I appreciate what you're doing, but please, don't forget to respect my work. Thank you.
- Hello guys! I'm sorry! I think this miss-understanding is my fault. I at least should have headed it off.
- I'll try to explain how I see this, but first, I think some background is in order. Yang did an amazing job with our Dunhill articles. He dedicated a tremendous amount of time researching and consulting with other Dunhill experts and factory personal. He also has excellent skills with Mediawiki and put together what I feel is a model to work toward for the rest of our articles. He continues to have a great deal of interest in his legacy here, and likes to be involved with any changes. If I'm going to make changes with the Dunhill articles, I will typically consult him first, in order to honor his investment in them, and to make sure I'm not messing something up ;) I realize this is not typical of other wikis, but I think it will prove to be fruitful here on Pipedia for the Dunhill articles.
- Magna has been making many excellent improvements across many articles. Sometimes they have involved a process that can be initially alarming (such as deleting files), but they turn out to be a refinement that will yield more consistency between the articles, and amount to "best practices" for wikis, and are extremely helpful, if not essential, for the over all health of our project moving forward.
- My suggestion would be to work together on the Dunhill articles as much as possible. You are both much more skilled with Mediawiki than I am. I have worked with both of you, and I know that you both have the best of intentions. And I think the best results would be to have you both working on this. It would involve a different type of collaboration than I think is typical on larger projects (such as Wikipedia). But my hope is that we can pull it off here. What do you think?
- Assuming we can collaborate on this level, is it best to do that via individual user talk pages? Or perhaps moving the dialogue to the "Discussion" tabs for the affected articles would be more to the point? That would have the advantage of documenting everything in context, and perhaps heading off misunderstandings in the future if we have other contributors making changes down the road...
- Hi Scott! I don't see ANY fault on ANY side. I think we're just trying to figure out how we can work together. I see it all day long as a web developer working in different and constantly changing teams that these teams have to Scrum to develop the best methods for the best possible outcome. I am writing code that other developers will eventually modify and amend (or even delete) in order to create something really marvellous, something a single person could not have achieved. That's the real strength of teams. But teams are not "definable" .. they have to grow and evolve. BTW: NOW I have deleted files, right. These were duplicate files that weren't used in pages. But I havn't deleted anything Dunhill-related. Magna (talk)
- Indeed, communication in English seems to be usually problematic. I don't know if for cultural or linguistic reasons.
- In my perception, you always consult someone before modifying what they did, for the sake of respect or cordiality. You should remember that I've always consulted you about changes, Scott. But that's not the problem...
- The page is not mine and I don't want to suppress the freedom that a collaborative project should have. My question is about having the presumption of modifying someone's work and having the audacity and inelegance to say that there is a "smart way to be done" without having the slightest idea what caused the problem, treating others as ignorant. That's unnecessary and rude, and that I can't accept.
- Magna, there are better ways for you to show your superiority... instead of erasing and modifying the work of others without any respect and presumptuously, perhaps you should devote your time to truly producing your own "smart" one and totally "error-proof" content. Thank you.
- "So in general it would be smart to avoid filenames that just consist of numbers." I think this sentence has triggerd you, right? When calling it "audacity" and "inelegance" I ask you kindly to take into account that I am not an english native speaker. It was not my attention to say anything bad. Honestly! On the other hand I cannot call "Modifying someone's work" a "presumption" as this is the key concept of "a collaborative project" which you admittedly "don't want to suppress". Also I'd like to know where I were "erasing .. the work of others" that weren't duplicates or spam? Magna (talk)
- Borkum Riff From Wikipedia: "This article has multiple issues". See? You have your own problems to solve.
- I'm in a little over my head here, guys. My suggestion would be to monitor what is going on without jumping to conclusions about the motivation behind changes being made. If you feel they have been destructive in any way to the content, undo them, and make a note in the "Discussion" tab for that article explaining your concerns. I am 100% certain that Magna is not trying to do anything but improve things here, just like Yang and many others have done in the past. Thanks! sethile (talk
- BTW, I use the batch upload a lot. It preserves the original files names, at least it does now. Perhaps there were "issues" with that in the past. But it's easy to accidently overwrite files using that tool. I find it's best to check for file names that might have been used before proceeding with a batch upload. If a file exist with that name, it will just overwrite them. You can see the previous one in the history for the file. But it's a mess to sort it out! sethile (talk
- "It preserves the original files names" .. good to know. As I said before: I havn't used it before cause I like to know what the system is doing instead of relying on automagic behaviour. But doing a manual upload for dozens of files is tedious and a waste of time. In this case I think would it be a best practice to prefix these files accordingly. "it's a mess to sort it out" .. Yeah! Exactly! Thats what I tried to do w/ these Dunhill images. And it was a lot of work to fix all these articles (half a dozen or so) that were corrupted. Magna (talk)
- I was one of the first to use. At first it had problems and we talked about it. The workload was so great that some things I didn't get a chance to fix. But Scott, don't worry about it. We're adults and we can solve this without major problems. I think we've been clear enough about it and I see no reason to stretch this conversation. Forgive me if it brought you any headache. Please, you have more important things to invest your time in. Kind regards.
- Sorry, but I cannot accept this. Using "grands mots" and then trying to play duck & cover? You insulted me quite harshly whereas I try to be objective. So again: "Where did I forgot to respect your work?". And finally "Where were I 'erasing .. the work of others' that weren't duplicates or spam?" Apparently two simple questions, right? Magna (talk)