Anonymous user
This wiki has been automatically closed because there have been no edits or log actions made within the last 60 days. If you are a user (who is not the bureaucrat) that wishes for this wiki to be reopened, please request that at Requests for reopening wikis. If this wiki is not reopened within 6 months it may be deleted. Note: If you are a bureaucrat on this wiki, you can go to Special:ManageWiki and uncheck the "Closed" box to reopen it.DynamicPageList3 Manual talk:Feedback: Difference between revisions
DynamicPageList3 Manual talk:Feedback (view source)
Revision as of 04:43, 28 March 2022
, 2 years agoAdding this before I forget, even though Lens0021 can't see it at current, the wiki should (hopefully) be opened up again soon to see my reply, and then I can just ping them again if need be.
imported>FrozenPlum m (Adding this before I forget, even though Lens0021 can't see it at current, the wiki should (hopefully) be opened up again soon to see my reply, and then I can just ping them again if need be.) |
|||
Line 37:
The contents of Gamepedia Help Wiki is available under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 and this wiki is under CC BY-SA 4.0. So the license of this wiki should be transfered to CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (configurable in [[Special:ManageWiki/settings#mw-section-editing|here]]). And I have another concern: In the future, we should document the features that are added to the CA's fork of DPL3, and maybe have to copy the documentation from the source code to this wiki. But the source code is under GPL-3.0 License. I do not know how to deal with this type of issue. [[User:Lens0021|Lens0021]] ([[User talk:Lens0021|talk]]) 11:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
:Thanks for letting me know! (It hadn't occurred I'd have access to do it, and, when granted temporary permissions, it still didn't occur to me, so is much appreciated!). I looked in ManageWiki; however, there is no option for CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. I've changed it to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 for now, but I'm waiting on a reply on the Community Noticeboard to find out if this is acceptable (and if it is the only usable license going forward).
:As for documentation relating to source changes, I'll leave this to CA to address, as I have no idea on either side of the issue (and certainly not both).
:I think what you mention would be '''exceptionally helpful for users''' migrating from one version of the extension to another, my main points for clarification are:
:* How and where do you envision this being done on the wiki?
:* Would a "Key changes" and/or "Migration guide" page (or something along those lines), in addition to the normal in-line (brief) mentions of, and links to changes, sound appropriate to you? --I'm pretty excited by the idea. :)
::If so, I'd want to add its link to on-page navbox and sidebar nav, once an appropriate title is decided.
::Another suggestion would be to continue the practice of brief change mentions in-line (maybe with a harder to miss notice for them?), then I'd suggest providing a link to the relevant Changes/Migration page (and its subsection) for the fulsome details. I'd also propose not doing DPL extension code in-line, on the existing pages, for 2 reasons:
::# It could confuse new users who ''begin'' with the forked version of DPL3, to see code change blocks.
::# It may fragment general usage information further (a common complaint with the existing manual). A funny, unrelated side note, I also added the invocation syntax page to the navbox after reading the manual page where it said invocation syntax was most important page (ironically left from the main nav) lol... I'd add your "key changes"/Migration guide (or whatever it ends up being called) in the same space because I think it's of similar importance.
::Questions regarding the extension code blocks are:
:* Would large extension code blocks be necessary (for the average user) to see, to migrate successfully from one version of DPL3 to the other? Or could explanations and use examples be enough (maybe with shorter references, links, citations)?
:* Could shorter references from the code be feasible, with a citation and link to the full code on GitHub, be a feasible alternative to copying larger chunks of the extension's code (I have no idea if this is sufficient, I'm just wondering if it needs duplicating, or if perhaps function names, citations with links, and line number(s) could be an alternative if the MH licenses are incompatible, since I've seen that sort of approach elsewhere)?
:* Would the code sections need to be explained between different versions (if I understand correctly, though I probably don't, the code sections may change between versions)?
| |||