Family Historian User Group

OK, I've had a first attempt at dealing with Namespace Concepts, but feel free to pull it apart

The contributeyourknowledge:index#namespace_concepts|> Contribute Your Knowledge has a new Namespace Concepts section.
The contributeyourknowledge:namespace_concepts|> Contribute Your Knowledge ~ Namespace Concepts page is new, but derived from older pages.

The contributeyourknowledge:edit_links_and_media|> Contribute Your Knowledge ~ Edit Links and Media page has updated links to namespaces throughout, plus other minor corrections and improvements.

The contributeyourknowledge:create_and_manage_pages|> Contribute Your Knowledge ~ Create And Manage Pages has similar updates, but only within the Introduction section and the What Sort of Page section, that now also incorporates the details from the contributeyourknowledge:creating_a_new_namespace|> Contribute Your Knowledge ~ Creating A New Namespace page.

Does contributeyourknowledge:index#basic_concepts|> Basic Concepts need any adjustment, maybe by referring to Namespace Concepts for details?

Mike,

I think what you've done is fine, given it will only be the really motivated that need to delve into the advanced stuff.

I've edited contributeyourknowledge:index#basic_concepts|> Basic Concepts to simplify the Basis cs concept para and point to the Namespace para, eliminating duplication.

Do we now just need to go through and check all the FIXmes etc. and publish?

Yes, I think that is the way to go

I will have a go at the most obvious FIXME entries.

In contributeyourknowledge:edit_links_and_media#download_links|> Download Links there is a FIXME for the pushfile.php utility name= option for the %20 feature.

Since the contributeyourknowledge:edit_links_and_media#pushfile_plugin_macro|> Pushfile Plugin Macro allows space characters in filenames, can we remove the %20 feature and say users must use the Pushfile Plugin if they need spaces in filenames?

Once that is resolved the only FIXME entries are to do with Expert Features and Reference Material that needs a little more thought.

I thunk that makes sense for the %20 issue.

Will have a look at Expert Features and Reference Material -- but probably not today, so if you get there first, don't wait for me!

I think the updates are almost nearly complete.
I have:

• Checked & corrected every FIXME except those on the contributeyourknowledge:expert_features#reference_material|> Reference Material section.
• Added a note about the 403 Forbidden message to the contributeyourknowledge:index#basic_concepts|> Basic Concepts section.
• Updated the contributeyourknowledge:edit_links_and_media#download_links|> Download Links regarding %20 as discussed.
• Added two methods to the contributeyourknowledge:expert_features#advanced_hyperlinks|> Advanced Hyperlinks section.
• Removed the Advanced Namespaces section as could not think of anything.
• Added usage references to the contributeyourknowledge:expert_features#control_macros|> Control Macros section and added macros that were not listed.

There are a few of those macros not discussed anywhere, such as ~~PAGEINDEX~~ and ~~GOTO>pagename~~, so I will give that a little thought.

Do each of the detail Pages need a hyperlink somewhere back to the top level Page?
I know there is the Related Pages Backlinks at the bottom, but is that enough?

tatewise wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2019 16:24

Do each of the detail Pages need a hyperlink somewhere back to the top level Page?
I know there is the Related Pages Backlinks at the bottom, but is that enough?

I think a link back to the starting point makes excellent sense.

OK, I can add add some Return to Overview Page backlinks where appropriate.

Do you agree that we can swap the 'original' and the 'alternative approach' around now?
Even if there are a few details to review or update, they can be edited on the 'live' pages.

What I then plan to do is review each of the 'original' sections and delete/hide/strikeout all that have matching sections in the 'alternative approach' just in case we have missed something, and eventually delete those old redundant pages.

At the end of the contributeyourknowledge:namespace_concepts#root_pages_namespaces|> Root Pages & Namespaces section are some root Namespaces that appear to be redundant 'junk' and maybe removed, so I will ask Jane to confirm and delete them.

Does that sound like a workable plan?

That sounds like an excellent plan, Mike -- sorry I'm not contributing more but a new drug is disagreeing with me...

Sorry about your disagreeable new drug.

I've carried out that plan and hidden the text linked via contributeyourknowledge:original_index|> Contribute Your Knowledge ~ Original Index.
Only a few topics needed migrating to the new pages, and a few new pages needed minor adjustments.

So I plan to leave things to settle for a week or so, and then can delete all the old original pages.

My review of the Namespaces used https://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?do=index to obtain a site map.
That revealed an alternative_approach Namespace containing Pages all without Backlinks:
alternative_approach:to-do_list_attribute|> To-do List Attribute
alternative_approach:using_naming_lists_to_track_your_research|> Using Naming Lists To Track Your Research
alternative_approach:using_notes_to_track_your_research|> Using Notes To Track Your Research
alternative_approach:zim|> zim and alternative_approach:zotero|> zotero
but alternative_approach has screenshot Images used in how_to:zim|> Zim and how_to:zotero|> Zotero

These all seem to be leftover from your how_to:create_work_in_progress_or_research_to_do_lists|> Planning and Tracking Your Research and apart from moving the how_to:zim|> Zim and how_to:zotero|> Zotero Images to the how_to namespace, they can all now be deleted. Do you agree?

Agreed, Mike.

Helen, I know you have been busy with the Research Planner, but have you had any chance to review the final version of our contributeyourknowledge:index|> Contribute Your Knowledge and the other recent changes in my previous posting?

Has anyone else taken a look at the new improved advice that hopefully makes it easier for users to add KB details?

Is it time to ditch all the old redundant pages?

Sorry, Mike -- when I said agreed, I meant I was happy with what you'd done and we could ditch the old pages.

OK, all old stuff ditched, and it only took us a year to complete this task

Hardly any time at all in genealogy terms then