I have started discussing RFCs - every page on the wiki has a discussion tab to the right of the 'page' tab at the top. I have finished the 'A's in 3.4 RFCs and will do them all eventually. http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Add_support_for_NORMARC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Add_subscription_serials_RFC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Advanced_cataloging_search_RFC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:AllowOnShelfHolds http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Analytic_Record_support I'm off to edit some more now. I'm formatting pages as follows: ==Votes== Under votes you add your +1 or -1 and your signature (there is a signature button on the top of each editing area) ==Notes== Under notes your discussion and your signature (there is a signature button on the top of each editing area) Thanks Nicole C. Engard Documentation Manager
See here for information on how to format your discussions so that they're nested and easier to follow: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages Nicole On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
I have started discussing RFCs - every page on the wiki has a discussion tab to the right of the 'page' tab at the top.
I have finished the 'A's in 3.4 RFCs and will do them all eventually.
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Add_support_for_NORMARC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Add_subscription_serials_RFC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Advanced_cataloging_search_RFC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:AllowOnShelfHolds http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Analytic_Record_support
I'm off to edit some more now.
I'm formatting pages as follows:
==Votes==
Under votes you add your +1 or -1 and your signature (there is a signature button on the top of each editing area)
==Notes==
Under notes your discussion and your signature (there is a signature button on the top of each editing area)
Thanks Nicole C. Engard Documentation Manager
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have started discussing RFCs - every page on the wiki has a discussion tab to the right of the 'page' tab at the top.
I have finished the 'A's in 3.4 RFCs and will do them all eventually.
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Add_support_for_NORMARC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Add_subscription_serials_RFC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Advanced_cataloging_search_RFC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:AllowOnShelfHolds http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Analytic_Record_support
how is someone supposed to find these from the wiki main page?
I'm off to edit some more now.
I'm formatting pages as follows:
==Votes==
Under votes you add your +1 or -1 and your signature (there is a signature button on the top of each editing area)
what is the purpose of voting? if someone feels like implementing something, unless there is a specific objection to the concept (which should be _very_ rare and requires much more explination than just a '-1 signature' vote) these ideas can be worked on by anyone who feels like doing so, having lots of + votes won't necessarily mean that it gets done any sooner than something with no votes. this isn't one companies limited development resources that we are talking about having to allocate to the highest priority project here, these proposals are all from people who are interested in doing the work, and as such there is no need to prioritize them. the more proposals you have from different sources, the more development resources you have to implement the proposals. David Lang
==Notes==
Under notes your discussion and your signature (there is a signature button on the top of each editing area)
Thanks Nicole C. Engard Documentation Manager _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Hi David On 11 November 2010 14:29, <david@lang.hm> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Nicole Engard wrote:
I have started discussing RFCs - every page on the wiki has a discussion tab to the right of the 'page' tab at the top.
I have finished the 'A's in 3.4 RFCs and will do them all eventually.
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Add_support_for_NORMARC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Add_subscription_serials_RFC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Advanced_cataloging_search_RFC http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:AllowOnShelfHolds http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Talk:Analytic_Record_support
how is someone supposed to find these from the wiki main page?
You find them from the rfc page, which is linked from the main koha-community site. Or if you wanted you could add some more links to them from the main page. It is a wiki after all. Its made for editing.
I'm off to edit some more now.
I'm formatting pages as follows:
==Votes==
Under votes you add your +1 or -1 and your signature (there is a signature button on the top of each editing area)
what is the purpose of voting?
All the votes mean is that someone thinks its a good idea, this was asked for at the meeting today. There was an overwhelming desire to have more people commenting on RFC and expressing their opinion, the vote is a quick way of someone saying I think this is a good.
if someone feels like implementing something, unless there is a specific objection to the concept (which should be _very_ rare and requires much more explination than just a '-1 signature' vote) these ideas can be worked on by anyone who feels like doing so, having lots of + votes won't necessarily mean that it gets done any sooner than something with no votes.
Yes, its not meant to do that. Its just feedback for the author.
this isn't one companies limited development resources that we are talking about having to allocate to the highest priority project here, these proposals are all from people who are interested in doing the work, and as such there is no need to prioritize them. the more proposals you have from different sources, the more development resources you have to implement the proposals.
I think most people realise this, what the notes and votes are for is providing feedback to the author. Whether they listen is up to them, I dont think anyone expects it to suddenly make code be written faster, nor will it guarantee that that feature will make it into a Koha release. No one can guarantee that, it has to be decided when the code is seen. It's just a shorthand way of saying, I think this is a good idea, or I think this is a bad idea. Chris
Nicole Engard wrote:
I have finished the 'A's in 3.4 RFCs and will do them all eventually.
I think it might be more use to group them by module. I've made some template changes to try to use a category for each module and pretty some other things. Let me know if that's any help. [...]
I'm formatting pages as follows:
==Votes==
So aren't we using Bugzilla voting? Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:35 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Nicole Engard wrote:
I'm formatting pages as follows:
==Votes==
So aren't we using Bugzilla voting?
I think it will only increase the confusion to have two voting systems in place. Bugzilla already has one, so by adding links to the enh reqs in bugzilla and maybe a note to the effect that we vote there, that should be sufficient. My $0.02 worth. Kind Regards, Chris
I'm up for whatever - just taking the lead on something that everyone seemed to want to talk to death. We can remove the votes from the wiki and put them on bugzilla instead - except that right now there aren't bugs for every rfc. Nicole On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:35 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Nicole Engard wrote:
I'm formatting pages as follows:
==Votes==
So aren't we using Bugzilla voting?
I think it will only increase the confusion to have two voting systems in place.
Bugzilla already has one, so by adding links to the enh reqs in bugzilla and maybe a note to the effect that we vote there, that should be sufficient.
My $0.02 worth.
Kind Regards, Chris _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
On 11 November 2010 14:35, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Nicole Engard wrote:
I have finished the 'A's in 3.4 RFCs and will do them all eventually.
I think it might be more use to group them by module. I've made some template changes to try to use a category for each module and pretty some other things. Let me know if that's any help.
Cool improvements, MJ! I think linking "automatically" to categories is a great idea, but I wonder if those categories should have RFC in their name? E.g.: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Guided_reports_serials_RFC This links to Categories:Serials, but what if we, in the future, want to have a category in the wiki for stuff related to serials, that has nothing to do with RFCs? Could we call the categories something like "RFCs for serials", "RFCs for cataloguing" etc? And did you intend the bug links to look like: See also [Bug 5338] or should it be: See also Bug 5338 ? Best regards, Magnus
Magnus Enger wrote:
I think linking "automatically" to categories is a great idea, but I wonder if those categories should have RFC in their name? E.g.: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Guided_reports_serials_RFC This links to Categories:Serials, but what if we, in the future, want to have a category in the wiki for stuff related to serials, that has nothing to do with RFCs? Could we call the categories something like "RFCs for serials", "RFCs for cataloguing" etc?
I decided not to do that because RFCs using only the template aren't actually *in* the category page, but are only shown when you click "What links here" in the left navigation on the category page (which doesn't really exist for Serials yet, as you'll notice). I hope there's some way to search for "Category:RFC link:Category:Serials" and "Category:Serials -Category:RFC" but I've not found it yet in MediaWiki. Anyone know if it's possible? I'm also a bit confused about why there's much different contents on http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:Home http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Special:Categories
And did you intend the bug links to look like: See also [Bug 5338] or should it be: See also Bug 5338 ?
I intended the latter, but I wasn't sufficiently irritated by the former to change it and thought maybe it's good to have it look like it should do in Subject lines. I accept some happy accidents. It's quite fiddly to edit Templates because the preview doesn't really give you a good insight into the output on actual pages. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:52 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Magnus Enger wrote:
And did you intend the bug links to look like: See also [Bug 5338] or should it be: See also Bug 5338 ?
I intended the latter, but I wasn't sufficiently irritated by the former to change it and thought maybe it's good to have it look like it should do in Subject lines. I accept some happy accidents.
Very nice addition! I wonder if it would be good to also note that one can "vote" on the RFC at the bugzilla link to encourage that sort of thing, especially for those who are not familiar with that option? Kind Regards, Chris
On 11 November 2010 15:52, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Magnus Enger wrote:
I think linking "automatically" to categories is a great idea, but I wonder if those categories should have RFC in their name? E.g.: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Guided_reports_serials_RFC This links to Categories:Serials, but what if we, in the future, want to have a category in the wiki for stuff related to serials, that has nothing to do with RFCs? Could we call the categories something like "RFCs for serials", "RFCs for cataloguing" etc?
I decided not to do that because RFCs using only the template aren't actually *in* the category page, but are only shown when you click "What links here" in the left navigation on the category page (which doesn't really exist for Serials yet, as you'll notice).
Hm, wouldn't it be better if they were in the category? I can't quite see why you would want to link to the category but not put the RFC in it? Using [[Category:{{{module|Development}}}|{{{module|Core development}}}]] in addition to = {{{title}}} ([[:Category:{{{module|Development}}}|{{{module|Core development}}}]]) = would take care of that, methinks.
I hope there's some way to search for "Category:RFC link:Category:Serials" and "Category:Serials -Category:RFC" but I've not found it yet in MediaWiki. Anyone know if it's possible?
Sounds complicated... ;-)
I'm also a bit confused about why there's much different contents on http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:Home
I think that is actually a category called "Home"?
That should be the definitive list of all the categories in the wiki.
And did you intend the bug links to look like: See also [Bug 5338] or should it be: See also Bug 5338 ?
I intended the latter, but I wasn't sufficiently irritated by the former to change it and thought maybe it's good to have it look like it should do in Subject lines. I accept some happy accidents.
;-)
It's quite fiddly to edit Templates because the preview doesn't really give you a good insight into the output on actual pages.
Very true, indeed! Regards, Magnus libriotech.no
Magnus Enger wrote:
On 11 November 2010 15:52, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
I decided not to do that because RFCs using only the template aren't actually *in* the category page, but are only shown when you click "What links here" in the left navigation on the category page (which doesn't really exist for Serials yet, as you'll notice).
Hm, wouldn't it be better if they were in the category? I can't quite see why you would want to link to the category but not put the RFC in it?
I didn't know how to do that from the template. I've given it a go as you describe at the same time as adding chris_n's voting note.
I hope there's some way to search for "Category:RFC link:Category:Serials" and "Category:Serials -Category:RFC" but I've not found it yet in MediaWiki. Anyone know if it's possible?
Sounds complicated... ;-)
It's simple: most search engines can do it, why not mediawiki? ;-) Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
On 11 November 2010 18:35, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Magnus Enger wrote:
On 11 November 2010 15:52, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
I decided not to do that because RFCs using only the template aren't actually *in* the category page, but are only shown when you click "What links here" in the left navigation on the category page (which doesn't really exist for Serials yet, as you'll notice).
Hm, wouldn't it be better if they were in the category? I can't quite see why you would want to link to the category but not put the RFC in it?
I didn't know how to do that from the template. I've given it a go as you describe at the same time as adding chris_n's voting note.
That looks good to me, e.g.: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Add_support_for_NORMARC And I have created Category:Cataloguing: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:Cataloguing But I still think it would be a good idea to specify that this Cataloguing-category is for Cataloguing RFCs... Any thoughts on that? Regards, Magnus libriotech.no
Salvete!
But I still think it would be a good idea to specify that this Cataloguing-category is for Cataloguing RFCs... Any thoughts on that?
I think the nesting is skewed, or perhaps the titling. Large umbrella RFCs. Smaller umbrella for versions. Smaller still for modules of a given version. Interesting thought to consider - unlike weighting in Drupal, once a given category is set, you get to live with it since moving ain't an option. Cheers, Brooke
Magnus Enger <magnus@enger.priv.no>
But I still think it would be a good idea to specify that this Cataloguing-category is for Cataloguing RFCs... Any thoughts on that?
I think it would be a bad idea. Such an RFC should be in both the Cataloguing category and the RFC category, which should let browsers identify that it is a Cataloguing RFC. On a related point, it pains me to see that there are inconsistently-named categories for RFCs for 3.2 and 3.4 but I haven't seen a way to fix that before I get time to visit each RFC and change the categories. I think they should be in 3.4 and RFC categories, or 3.2 and RFC categories, as appropriate, if we can search for things in the intersection of two categories, which I also haven't seen a way to do yet. Are these changes and category-based searches possible? Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
MJ It used to be that way (3.4 and RFC categories) but was changed. I can't find a way to rename a category in mediawiki like I can pages though :( As for searching not sure how to do what u want without a computer to try it on. Nicole Sent from my android phone. Please excuse brevity and typos. On Nov 12, 2010 4:54 AM, "MJ Ray" <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Magnus Enger <magnus@enger.priv.no>
But I still think it would be a good idea to specify that this Cataloguing-category is for Cataloguing RFCs... Any thoughts on that?
I think it would be a bad idea. Such an RFC should be in both the Cataloguing category and the RFC category, which should let browsers identify that it is a Cataloguing RFC.
On a related point, it pains me to see that there are inconsistently-named categories for RFCs for 3.2 and 3.4 but I haven't seen a way to fix that before I get time to visit each RFC and change the categories. I think they should be in 3.4 and RFC categories, or 3.2 and RFC categories, as appropriate, if we can search for things in the intersection of two categories, which I also haven't seen a way to do yet.
Are these changes and category-based searches possible?
Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply inline: 1. CATEGORY NAMING. On Fri, November 12, 2010 09:53, MJ Ray wrote:
Magnus Enger <magnus@enger.priv.no>
But I still think it would be a good idea to specify that this Cataloguing-category is for Cataloguing RFCs... Any thoughts on that?
I think it would be a bad idea. Such an RFC should be in both the Cataloguing category and the RFC category, which should let browsers identify that it is a Cataloguing RFC.
Searching for the intersection of multiple wiki categories such as 'RFCs' and 'Cataloguing' would be a simple way of finding appropriate content. Until yesterday, we did not have an effect means for making such searches implemented. See section 2 further below for the extension which I added. More use of 'RFC' in titles for RFCs would also help. MediaWiki article pages can be renamed along with their history by following the move link. A redirect is automatically created for moved article pages. (I have never renamed anyone's article except those which I had created without thinking well enough about the name.) Adding 'RFC' to the end of RFC titles which do not include 'RFC' in the title already may be helpful. With or without category intersection searches, there is an advantage to being able to add granular RFC categories to watched pages for catching new additions. There is no similar means implemented for automatically watching changes in search results. Browsing the category hierarchy in a simple manner without forming multi-category queries is also aided by having distinctive category names. I addressed some other details about how category names function within MediaWiki in an earlier message in this thread, http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2010-November/026261.html . I have also addressed some other problems with category use relating to MediaWiki extensions which we have installed, http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2010-November/026309.html . 1.1. CONSISTENCY IN CATEGORY NAMING.
On a related point, it pains me to see that there are inconsistently-named categories for RFCs for 3.2 and 3.4 but I haven't seen a way to fix that before I get time to visit each RFC and change the categories.
Inconsistent category names pained me so much that I spent many hours fixing the naming inconsistencies. On the way I added applicable categories for Koha components matching the categories established in bugzilla. In cases where more than one Koha component category was applicable, I added multiple categories. The real problem had been the proliferation of category name variants from typing a category name into the former form of the RFC template. Templates are fine for assigning fixed categories for all uses of the template but templates are problematic when the user has to type in a category name. The problem is no different for cataloguing bibliographic material without guided input for authority controlled fields. The procedure which I followed to obtain consistent category use was to create a new category with a simple conventional name or choose the most conventionally well understood of the multiplicity of variant category names for using. I then changed each page in inconsistent categories to consistent categories. Once the inconsistent categories contained no more pages, I deleted the inconsistent categories to avoid polluting the category lists with disused categories. I have not change category assignment for 'Abandoned RFC' and I am in no hurry for what I expect would not be a rapidly expanding category. 'Abandoned RFCs' in plural would be a more conventionally consistent name but again I hope that the category use is small. 2. SEARCHING CATEGORY INTERSECTIONS AND DISJUNCTIONS.
I think they should be in 3.4 and RFC categories, or 3.2 and RFC categories, as appropriate, if we can search for things in the intersection of two categories, which I also haven't seen a way to do yet.
There are a few means to implement searches for category intersections in MediaWiki. The most flexible means include adding additional indexing software along with some extensions. First we would need to fix a problem with command line scripts failing for the Koha MediaWiki installation, http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2010-November/026256.html . I have installed the MultiCategorySearch extension as the best alternative for now, http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Special:MultiCategorySearch . I have extensively modified the extension mostly to allow the drop down hierarchy of categories to be populated automatically from the current set of categories. Searches can be conducted for pages which are in one or more category.. Additionally, searches can exclude pages in one or more categories. I set the query protocol to get for bookmarking queries. Some possible extreme use might exceed URL length limits but I would not expect that to be a problem with real world use. I could also shorten get parameter names and by that point I would have done almost a complete rewrite of the extensions. MutliCategorySearch has no provision for including pages within subsidiary categories in a hierarchy. There is also no provision for combining text searching with explicit category searching in the Koha wiki at present. Some of the more flexible solutions for which we would need MediaWiki command line scripts to be working provide for searching subsidiary categories to a specified depth along with other options such as text searching. [...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
Reply inline: On Thu, November 11, 2010 18:57, Magnus Enger wrote:
On 11 November 2010 18:35, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Magnus Enger wrote:
On 11 November 2010 15:52, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
I decided not to do that because RFCs using only the template aren't actually *in* the category page, but are only shown when you click "What links here" in the left navigation on the category page (which doesn't really exist for Serials yet, as you'll notice).
Hm, wouldn't it be better if they were in the category? I can't quite see why you would want to link to the category but not put the RFC in it?
I didn't know how to do that from the template. I've given it a go as you describe at the same time as adding chris_n's voting note.
That looks good to me, e.g.: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Add_support_for_NORMARC And I have created Category:Cataloguing: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:Cataloguing
But I still think it would be a good idea to specify that this Cataloguing-category is for Cataloguing RFCs... Any thoughts on that?
In MediaWiki categories need appropriate names to avoid semantic confusion and ensure that they are used in an appropriate way. If you intend for a category to be used only for RFCs related to cataloguing, give the category an appropriate name such as 'cataloguing RFCs'. Category parent / child relationships will not save you from ambiguity and if merely using 'Cataloguing' as a category name for RFCs relating to cataloguing. In using such a general name you will have taken a perfectly good category name which most people will want to use for cataloguing generally. The actual structure of categories is flat allowing them to have multiple parent/child relationships to other categories which does not provide for some particular use unless identified in the name. [...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On 19 November 2010 00:54, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
But I still think it would be a good idea to specify that this Cataloguing-category is for Cataloguing RFCs... Any thoughts on that?
In MediaWiki categories need appropriate names to avoid semantic confusion and ensure that they are used in an appropriate way. If you intend for a category to be used only for RFCs related to cataloguing, give the category an appropriate name such as 'cataloguing RFCs'.
Category parent / child relationships will not save you from ambiguity and if merely using 'Cataloguing' as a category name for RFCs relating to cataloguing. In using such a general name you will have taken a perfectly good category name which most people will want to use for cataloguing generally. The actual structure of categories is flat allowing them to have multiple parent/child relationships to other categories which does not provide for some particular use unless identified in the name.
I agree. I think there should be a category called something like "Cataloguing RFCs", which has both "Cataloguing" and "RFCs" as parents. Regards, Magnus libriotech.no
Reply inline: On Sun, November 21, 2010 15:00, Magnus Enger wrote:
On 19 November 2010 00:54, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
But I still think it would be a good idea to specify that this Cataloguing-category is for Cataloguing RFCs... Any thoughts on that?
In MediaWiki categories need appropriate names to avoid semantic confusion and ensure that they are used in an appropriate way. If you intend for a category to be used only for RFCs related to cataloguing, give the category an appropriate name such as 'cataloguing RFCs'.
Category parent / child relationships will not save you from ambiguity and if merely using 'Cataloguing' as a category name for RFCs relating to cataloguing. In using such a general name you will have taken a perfectly good category name which most people will want to use for cataloguing generally. The actual structure of categories is flat allowing them to have multiple parent/child relationships to other categories which does not provide for some particular use unless identified in the name.
I agree. I think there should be a category called something like "Cataloguing RFCs", which has both "Cataloguing" and "RFCs" as parents.
The Category Breadcrumb extension is not displaying all the categories correctly when categories have multiple parents. There is no problem for assigning multiple categories to non-category pages. I have made a few modifications to Category Breadcrumb but the hooks into MediaWiki are new to me and I do not expect to be looking at the multiple parent category bug for a while. Meanwhile, I suggest linking categories to an additional parent by manually adding code in the following form which creates a link to the additional category without actually making the category an additional parent category. Note the leading colon after the second bracket. See also [[:Category:Additional Parent Category]]. Furthermore, adding categories with templates had been creating problems which others had noticed with minor variations on category names for the same concept such as both singular and plural forms and uncaught misspellings. I have fixed the RFC template and have been adding categories Koha component names for RFCs based on the Koha component list in Bugzilla. Checking the correct category or categories from the category selection tree under the editing text box is much easier and more reliable than free typing a category name into a template. New categories can always be added with the following syntax. Spaces in MediaWiki category names and usernames are fine. MediaWiki converts spaces to underscores when appropriate. [[Category:My new category]] [...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:35 PM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Magnus Enger wrote:
On 11 November 2010 15:52, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
I decided not to do that because RFCs using only the template aren't actually *in* the category page, but are only shown when you click "What links here" in the left navigation on the category page (which doesn't really exist for Serials yet, as you'll notice).
Hm, wouldn't it be better if they were in the category? I can't quite see why you would want to link to the category but not put the RFC in it?
I didn't know how to do that from the template. I've given it a go as you describe at the same time as adding chris_n's voting note.
I added a section to the template to allow posting of links to published code for the RFC like here: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Duplicate_card_button This will allow any work being done to be easily located via the RFC. Kind Regards, Chris
Reply inline: On Thu, November 11, 2010 15:09, Magnus Enger wrote:
On 11 November 2010 15:52, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
[...]
I'm also a bit confused about why there's much different contents on http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:Home
I think that is actually a category called "Home"?
Home is the top level category containing all other categories. If you create a new category, please add an existing or new parent category to the page for your new category. Home is the parent category of all parent categories. When every wiki page has a category and every category has a parent leading to the Home category, then all the wiki content can be navigated using the categories as a table of contents starting from Home. [...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783
participants (8)
-
Chris Cormack -
Chris Nighswonger -
david＠lang.hm -
M. Brooke Helman -
Magnus Enger -
MJ Ray -
Nicole Engard -
Thomas Dukleth