Knowledge Base changes: Difference between revisions

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(461 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{org}}
{{org}}
==Introduction==
This page has been created for several reasons.
This page has been created for several reasons.


*It would be nice to have a place where new editors can introduce themselves and meet existing editors.
*It would be nice to have a place where new editors can introduce themselves and meet existing editors.
*It would be good to allow new editors to safely propose content changes (minor or major) prior to implementing them.
*It would be good to allow new editors to safely propose content changes (minor or major) prior to implementing them.
*It would be good to have a central location to discuss the style, content and organisation of this Knowledge Base. (Some of the ideas in [[Talk:Knowledge Base]] can be migrated here, leaving that page solely for discussion of the front page article itself.
*It would be good to have a central location to discuss the style, content and organization of this Knowledge Base. (Some of the ideas in [[Talk:Knowledge Base]] can be migrated here, leaving that page solely for discussion of the front page article itself.
*This page is an attempt to address recent incidents that have occured on the KB where some groups of editors have been unaware of major changes being made by other groups of editors.
*This page was an attempt to address incidents that have occurred on the KB where some groups of editors have been unaware of major changes being made by other groups of editors.


We intend to place a link to this page in the "welcome to new editors" paragraphs found on the front page and from the other "entrance" pages such as [[Firefox]] and [[Thunderbird]] if it is deemed useful.
This page is the primary place to ''announce'' new suggestions. Whenever possible, issues should be ''discussed'' in a more appropriate place, such as the discussion page of the article or category that the suggestion affects. Once suggestions are resolved, they are moved to [[Knowledge Base changes/Archive]].


We anticipate this page being the primary place to announce new suggestions. Please visit it regularly!
You can request somebody create an article at [[Requested articles]] .


==Welcome to new editors==
==Copyright/License problems==
Hello! Great to have you here. Please add a comment here :-)
I suggest we think about adding a short "Copyright/License problems" section in [[Rules_and_guidelines]] that sets peoples expectations on what they can legitimately copy/modify. I'm splitting this out as a separate topic from "Using external sources and references in KB articles". Please discuss this at [[Talk:Rules_and_guidelines]] . [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


* Hello Knowledge Base! FJ reporting to duty! *bows at all* [[User:FatJohn|FatJohn]] 11:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Roland Tanglao (tech support lead at Mozilla Messaging) is going to talk to Kerz about the possibility of our using a license compatible with the license SuMoMo (The official knowledge base at support.mozillamessaging.com) uses. The issue came up when we planned some events where people on the tb-support-crew AT mozilla.org mailing list (mainly from the MozillaZine and Mozilla Messaging/GetSatisfaction communities) collaborate on writing KB articles. They are initially developed here and then ported to their site. That doesn't raise any legal issues if they are started from scratch. However, someday we may want to merge content from several articles (some of which are on their site) when creating a new article, and there is always the issue of not being able to use updates added to the SuMoMo version of the article on this sites version of the same article unless you start spending a lot of effort tracking and justifying stuff.


==Hot topic—Making things less daunting for new editors==
See the [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Knowledge_Base_changes/Archive#License_issues archive of license issues]. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 11:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Several new editors (or potential editors) have felt a bit daunted by the [[rules]] for contributing. I think this is a shame; we want their contributions! (The rules are fairly comprehensive and are written formally; this is for the benefit of regular contributors. But it was never anyone's intention to discourage new editors.) I have added an introduction to the [[rules]] page, which states that they don't need to read everthing thoroughly. This could be controversial; please state your view here! Should we include that sentiment in other places too? And should we put a sticky in the forums which tries to bring new editors to the KB? --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:Looks good; you have a knack for writing these welcome intros. Where else would that sentiment be included? Instead of a forum sticky, I'd just use a regular thread in the General forums; the regulars will see it. A few suggestions: (1) The "Please don't be offended..." sentence can come out or be merged into the similar point in the "Editing courtesy" section. (2) The "Avoid superfluous information" section could go into In-house style. (3) The "Test editing pages" section could come to the very top, above "Editing courtesy", as a way to invite people to take the plunge into editing. (4) "Talking to authority" should come out; those links are all available in kb Organization category and aren't rules in the first place. (5) [[Rules/Templates]] should be renamed because those templates aren't rules; they're editing shortcuts and should be presented as such. --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 14:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::I've implemented some of these suggestions. I suggest we move discussion which is specifically about the [[Rules]] page to the corresponding [[Talk:Rules]] page. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I suggest the rules be modified to state that you shouldn't post a notice on a page unless it adds value to the reader. For example, posting a notice stating that the name of the knowledge base page is in error (when its actually due to a limitation of the wiki software) just causes confusion and annoys the person who wrote the article. The reader doesn't care that we're using Wiki software. Note that I'm not arguing against a notice that an article needs rewriting. The reason I'm mentioning this in this section is because behavior that seems perfectly appropiate to somebody steeped in the wiki culture can be upsetting to a new editor who has never had to deal with collaborative writing with strangers. --[[User:Tanstaafl | Tanstaafl]] 3:30 AM January 16, 2006 (PMT)
==Using the new SeaMonkey category==
: I disagree. The notice regarding "incorrect article title" is very clear in specifying that the name is wrong for "technical reasons" (as opposed to editor error) and it suggests the correct name. I don't see that it is confusing. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A new [[:Category:SeaMonkey]] was created awhile back, which went under my radar ;-). I was thinking, why not use this new category to track SeaMonkey 2 articles for now?  I started a Discussion page here: [[:Category talk:SeaMonkey]] [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm not a wiki person. It was easy to pick up what I needed to know to edit knowledge base articles before we switched to categories. Its more difficult now. An example - I need to create a new category. I read Rules/Categories and it wasn't clear to me how to create a new category, though I understood how to make a category a subcategory because that didn't require any background knowledge. Please think about the barrier to entry you're accidentally creating by assuming a new editor has a wiki background. --[[User:Tanstaafl | Tanstaafl]] 3:30 AM January 16, 2006 (PMT)
[http://kb.mozillazine.org/User:Skierpage Skierpage] is looking for advice on how to update old Mozilla Suite stuff for SeaMonkey, especially for Linux. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
: I hope that it has now been made clearer on the various entrance pages that contributors do not need to worry about categories etc. if they find these things daunting. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I don't think creating a thread will help attract new editors. --[[User:Tanstaafl | Tanstaafl]] 3:30 AM January 16, 2006 (PMT)
==Replacement of Profile Manager==
: Why not? --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I suggest you consider converting MozillaZine_Knowledge_Base:Formatting into a short primer on what you need to know to be an editor. The current article does a good job of covering what you need to know about formatting. But it doesn't cover other common tasks such as how you create a new article or how to categorize it. Yes, there are links to wiki documentation where you can find that but its rather overwhelming for somebody who may know a little HTML or bbcode and is not used to reading rules, in-house style guides, naming conventions etc. while learning yet another formatting syntax. Think of all that we're implying a person should read before doing something small such as update an existing article for a new version. Especially since they really don't need to deal with most of those topics until they create a new article, if they make an attempt to mimic what they see in the article they're editing. I think its telling that some of our most prolific forum posters such as Daifne, SKopischke, GordMcFee and Mr. Liu have never touched the knowledge base as far as I can tell. The current approach seems designed to tell you everything that you need to know to do it right in order to minimize cleanup by other editors. I think we should increase the risk that we'll have to cleanup after a new editor for a while if that makes it easier to lower the barrier to entry (whether its real or perceived). --[[User:Tanstaafl | Tanstaafl]] 3:30 AM January 16, 2006 (PMT)
The profile manager is going to be eliminated after Firefox 4.0. [http://www.ghacks.net/2011/01/19/firefox-profile-manager-to-be-removed-soon/] [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2066609] Thunderbird will probably also do the same. [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2073455] The separate profile manager utility is not designed for end users, and its not clear yet whether it will even be bundled with the Mozilla application.  
: I agree with this sentiment. I hope it is clearer now that new editors need not digest the finer details of the rules and conventions. A primer would be useful; surely someone's already written a decent wiki primer somewhere that we can just link to? --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm suggesting that we make it easy for them to get started by letting them get started using just the primer, let them learn more of the conventions/customs (documented in the rules, guides etc.) later on as they tackle bigger tasks, and try to avoid giving them the impression they need to learn everything before they can do anything. Once thats in place its also easier for somebody to encourage somebody to contribute.  
How do we want to handle documenting both? Its already very awkward documenting how to use the profile manager for multiple applications and multiple operating systems in one article. That is the reason why [[Moving_your_profile_folder_-_Thunderbird]] was created for example. Given the different release schedules for Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird, and how some users keep using old major versions for a very long time we will probably have to deal with both for at least several years.


It might also help if one or two names (perhaps Wintogreen?) were mentioned in the primer as volunteers that new editors are encouraged to contact via private messages for advice if they need it. --[[User:Tanstaafl | Tanstaafl]] 3:30 AM January 16, 2006 (PMT)
Do we want to adopt some naming convention in other articles to make it clear which one we're talking about or do we want to refer to both as the profile manager?  


:I took the liberty of expanding the [[MozillaZine Knowledge Base:About|About]] page, in particular the "Contributing to the KB" section. If someone could please review it and revise where you think it can be improved, that'd be great. Note that I also added a "Need help with the wiki?" section at the end of the [[Help wanted]] page. That's my way of saying I don't want to be a designated go-to guy. ;-) --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 19:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I realize this is early but I'd like to document how to use the replacement with Thunderbird (if only to get more people to try it and provide feedback to the author) and don't want to make that a isolated stand alone article. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 02:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


==Hot topic—replacing the FAQs and Issues pages with category navigation==
:I've already added this note to the top of the [[Profile Manager]] article:<br>
Discussion of this proposal can be found on [[Talk:Rules/Categories]]). To summarize the situation so far:
:{| {{prettytable}}
 
|-
Part of the motivation for implementing categories was to avoid the following situation which occurred with the original FAQs, Issues and Tips pages: article links had to be maintained manually; some articles appeared on more than one page; some articles didn't appear on any page. The result was that people had to look at all three pages to makes sure they didn't miss anything, and then perform a search as well. With categories, the danger that an article was never linked to from anywhere was removed, since category automatically list the articles. There was no opposition to removing the Tips pages.
|'''''Note:''' Mozilla is planning to remove the built-in Profile Manager  from future Mozilla applications (after Firefox 4.0) and a standalone "Profile Manager" application will be available. "Profile Manager 1.0 Beta 1" is described [http://jagriffin.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/profilemanager-1-0_beta1 here]. For more information, see [http://www.ghacks.net/2011/01/19/firefox-profile-manager-to-be-removed-soon/ this blog post] and [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Profile_Manager this article at MDC]. [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=10275581#p10275581] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214675] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539524]''  
 
|-
The suggestion to temove the FAQs and Issues pages was more controversial. Indeed, the problem with relying solely on category listings is that ''logical order'' is lost. The initial solution proposed was to use the editable part at the top of the category pages to recreate some logical order by factoring in parts of the FAQs and Issues pages. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]]
|}
 
:According to [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539524#c22 bug 539524 comment 22] the standalone PM application will probably not be bundled with future Firefox downloads when it is removed from Firefox and  will be a separate, optional download.   I thought that we might make a template similar to the above note and add it to the top of all articles about profiles.   When the built-in Profile Manager is actually removed (sometime after Firefox 4.0) we could add something to the effect that the article or article section ''applies to Firefox 4.0 and below.'' We could then create a new "Profile Manager application" or "Profile Manager utility" article and link to it, just like we have  for the [[MozBackup]] standalone utility.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 14:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:My current opinion on this is that the FAQ and Issues pages should be kept, because they contain more info that could sensibly be placed in the category pages. However, I do think that they should both contain prominant links to the category pages, notifying the reader that there is more info on the KB than the selection of articles advertised on the FAQ and Issues pages. Indeed, I would suggest renaming "Issues " to "Common Issues with Firefox" to emphasise the fact that the Issues page is just a selection. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 15:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:: First, thanks for the new discussion area and for the invitation to add comments.  I've already added some comments to the [[Talk:Issues with Firefox]] page, back when it was first removed.  I never did see the justification for removing either page,  even if they are no longer linked from the front page.  (I took it upon myself to restore them... I'm sorry it I stepped on anyone's toes but I was totally unaware of any discussion going on or a decision to remove the two pages.  I strongly believe  that  both pages should be kept as they're a very handy way to organize and locate information, especially the FAQs page, which is unique in that the collection of links isn't duplicated anywhere else, alphabetically or not.  Both pages are good places to include links to forum topics,  release notes  or other external links when there is no KB article covering the topic, plus the link descriptions give much more information than a simple title page link.  I'm willing to help keep both pages organized and updated since I refer to them both so often.  As far as the  [[Issues with Firefox]] page,  I've already pointed out in the intro that,  "A link to an alphabetized list of current articles in the Category, Issues (Firefox) can be found at the end of this article." It might be a good idea to eliminate some of the less common issues on the page, such as the entire "Versions older than 1.0" section,  and to emphasize that the page is  a collection of "Common Firefox Issues" and is not exhaustive.  I don't see the need for a new name but if someone else whats to rename the page "Common Firefox Issues" or similar, that's fine with me.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:::''"I'm sorry it I stepped on anyone's toes&hellip;."'' Not at all. Thanks for the points you've raised. The links to the forums and other offsite pages are indeed important. I was weighing up the idea of creating KB articles which act as wrappers for offsite links, that is, they have a useful title but their content is just a link. Ultimately, it would be good to have the info that they point to actually transferred to the article. (Anybody got a free week? ;-) I don't claim that this is an urgent task, but it would be good to have the offsite info represented somehow in the category listings. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 11:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::::I made some changes to both the [[Firefox FAQs]] and [[Issues with Firefox]] pages today and made a note of this discussion on the Talk pages for each article. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 16:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::That's great; thanks! --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 12:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
One of the current problems is that some of the categories mingle articles written for all of the products, even though you may have navigated there by selecting articles for one product. Somebody looking for information on Thunderbird privacy and security for example shouldn't see stuff such as Disabling autocomplete (Firefox), Mozilla Suite : FAQs : Mozilla Security or Parental controls. Ditto for navigating to Configuration::Preferences for Thunderbird and finding dozens of articles on preferences that Thunderbird doesn't support. I suggest we create a strategy for how to deal with this before creating a SeaMonkey category, which will just make it worse. My impression is that this is being dealt with piecemail by creating new versions of dozens of subcategories specific to an application. Is this what we want? --[[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 4:00AM, 16 January 2006 (PST)
 
:Well, I don't think that doing things piecemeal is necessarily a bad thing. We spent a lot of time devising the initial category structure, but in practice we found that it was unnecessarily complex and so we undid it afterwards. Potentially the same thing could happen here, and so I'm reluctant to invest much time in it. Our whole approach with the categorization has always been this: come up with a global idea of what the KB would ideally look like if it were jam-packed with articles, devise a mechanism which scales to that level, but only implement the stuff that actually makes sense given the ''current'' number of articles, leaving the other stuff to be implemented as and when necessary. In theory I agree that there should be separate app-categories for (e.g.) Privacy and security, but in practice there aren't many articles in the current category, and those which are there are labelled with with the app name in the title. (Surely people looking for TB articles will just skip over articles with "(Firefox)" in the title?) --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 11:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 
==Hot topic&mdash;the new front page==
See [[Knowledge Base]] and [[Talk:Knowledge Base]].
 
==New proposal&mdash;implementing "browse by UI feature" system for Firefox articles==
See [[Firefox components]] and [[Talk:Firefox components]].
 
==Question&mdash;how to use "SeaMonkey" in the kb from now?==
With the SeaMonkey 1.0 release just around the corner, I've been wondering how we should adjust for the use of the "SeaMonkey" name in the kb. As it is now, the article-naming conventions and in-house style both specify that only "Mozilla Suite" is to be used. Since SeaMonkey has features not in the Suite, it seems like it would make sense to start referring to the proper product name when it's needed to differentiate it from the Suite; perhaps we could linkify "SeaMonkey" in such cases so that it leads back to the category page, where there could be a blurb about the two names being used in the kb. Thoughts? --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:Maybe we could  link to the [[Mozilla_Suite_:_FAQs_:_Status]] page if we needed to refer to SeaMonkey and mention somewhere that articles referring to "Mozilla Suite" may also apply to "SeaMonkey" and other unofficial Mozilla-based products.  Correct me if I'm wrong but  all "Mozilla Suite" articles should continue to apply only to  the official Mozilla Suite 1.7.xx product.  I figure a separate category should be set up for "SeaMonkey" just as there is a [[:Category:Nvu]]. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::In [[:Category:Preferences]] we're listing them both.--[[User:Np|Np]] 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree with Alice; it sounds like we should introduce a new category for Seamonkey. I would think that lots of the Mozilla Suite articles could also be placed in the new category for now (after putting a "this article was written for the Mozilla Suite but also applies to SeaMonkey" notice at the top of them). Sooner or later SeaMonkey will have progressed to the point that the Mozilla Suite articles will no longer apply. At this point, these articles should be taken out of the SeaMonkey category again, and new ones written purely for SeaMonkey. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, hopefully it won't get too messy. I'm thinking I might make an article similar to [[Menu differences in Windows, Linux, and Mac]] for Thunderbird - Suite - SeaMonkey menu differences, so that instead of trying to stuff Suite/SeaMonkey menu sequences into TB articles I can just insert a link into the notice at the top that says "...written for TB but also applies to Suite/SeaMonkey (though some menu sequences may differ)". --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 13:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Wintogreen about the need for standard one-liner. I have no interest in spending time learning about Seamonkey or Mozilla Suite when writing a knowledge base article for Thunderbird, yet know I have to somehow mention them. --[[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 3:42AM, 16 January 2006 (PMT)
 
::::::I've taken a stab at this with a new template -- [[Template:Tbsuite]], now in action [[Compacting folders|here]]. It lists both Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey and links to the page Alice suggested. Some articles flagged like this will apply to both the Suite and SM, and some to SM only, but we can let the users of those respective apps worry about it from there.<br>As for creating SeaMonkey categories... what's to be gained by doing this instead of using the existing Mozilla Suite categories (or redirecting those to become SM categories, as I think can be done)? If SM features or menu sequences need to be differentiated from those for the Suite, that can be done easily enough within the article (like has been done for different TB versions in [[Multiple SMTP servers (Thunderbird)|this article]]). Considering that the Suite categories are a mess as is, with no one taking care of them, why double the mess by creating a parallel set of SM categories? --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::  I see your linked text in the [[Template:Tbsuite]] is ''Mozilla Suite / SeaMonkey'' which might make someone think of them as the same product, renamed.  The [[Mozilla_Suite_:_FAQs_:_Status | linked page]] says that "the Suite is no longer an official product" which is ambiguous.  I was considering them as separate products when I suggested a separate category for SeaMonkey, with Mozilla Suite being the official product, especially since both products are available and Mozilla Suite is continuing to be updated, if only for security bug fixes.  I noticed on the [[Category_talk:Preferences]] page containing guidelines for preference articles,  the [[Category_talk:Preferences#Formatting | Formating section]] also referenced ''Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey'' as a single product, while in preference artilces supposedly based on those guidelines, they are listed as separate products. See my comments under [[Knowledge_Base_changes#Article-writing_guidelines | Article-writing guidelines]] below. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 14:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::: Hi Alice. What I've been thinking, since I made the trial template, is that the [[Mozilla_Suite_:_FAQs_:_Status | linked page]] should be like the [[Firefox]] and [[Thunderbird]] pages PLUS serve as a kind of disambiguation page&mdash;i.e., by summarizing the Suite/SeaMonkey connection and noting that a handful of articles claiming to apply to the Suite/SeaMonkey may really only apply to one of them, due to changes since the Suite development stopped. That page would have to be modified, or a different page used instead. Yes, they are separate products (or, one's a "product" and one's a "project"), and referring to them in a template as "Mozillla Suite/SeaMonkey" is not ideal. But as tanstaafl pointed out, we do need a practical, simple way of referring to "the Mozilla Suite and/or SeaMonkey" in TB articles. I'm open to other ideas. How about "SuiteMonkey"? --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::: Hi, wintogreen.  I agree the [[Mozilla_Suite_:_FAQs_:_Status | linked page]] for the template should be modified, or better yet, create a new page explaining the Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey commonalities and differences.    In most cases, just a template will do,  whatever you want to use as the linked text  (I would go with "Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey") .  In new articles that apply to both products, I would probably stay with "Mozilla Suite" with a link to a "Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey" template,  and not refer "SeaMonkey" at all in the article unless I was referring to certain features that are only present  in SeaMonkey 1.0 or later.    The problem I see is inconsistency.  Look at  [[browser.bookmarks.file]] and [[browser.cache.disk.capacity]] under "UI".  The first has "Mozilla Suite" and the second has "Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey".  By the way, I was editing below under [[Knowledge_Base_changes#Article-writing_guidelines | Article-writing guidelines]] before I saw your reply here. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::: I'd be more inclined to use "SeaMonkey" in an article if I know for sure that it applies to SeaMonkey and especially if I don't know if it also applies to Mozilla Suite (which will more and more be the case as time passes). --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::::: ''...if I don't know if it also applies to Mozilla Suite.....'' What, you don't plan on keeping both versions, for testing and such;-)  In that case,  if you didn't know for sure that a new article applied to both products, create the category "SeaMonkey" and place the new article there, with a reference that the article was written for SeaMonkey but may also apply to Mozilla Suite?    [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::You wouldn't believe the number of new Thunderbird users who can't even get it straight whether the dedicated email client they're using is called Thunderbird, Firefox, Firebird or Mozilla.  Wintogreens one-liner about Mozilla Suite / Seamonkey alerts somebody that its likely (but not 100% sure) the article also applies to those products and minimizes the amount of work the author does. If somebody ever confirms it applies then they have the option of adding the article to the Mozilla Suite and/or SeaMonkey category and/or stating something specific about the differences in support. I guess I'm arguing that the expense of avoiding inconsistency isn't worth it given all of the bigger fish to fry. --[[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 2:40AM, 18 January 2006 (PMT)
 
::::::::::::: Update: since the above-mentioned <nowiki>{{Tbsuite}}</nowiki> template is now in use and linking to [[Mozilla Suite : FAQs : Status]], I tried to fill out that page to make it a bit more useful. That page doesn't have to be the permanent target for the template, of course; if someone wants to move the relevant content elsewhere and update the template link accordingly, feel free. --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 19:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::::: Nice work.  The [[Mozilla Suite : FAQs : Status | page]] is a lot more useful now.  I did some very minor editing and added a short blurb mentioning "SeaMonkey" at the top. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::::: Thanks for your further edits to that page. The phrase you've inserted at the top&mdash;"Mozilla Suite code development and the SeaMonkey project"&mdash;would make a good name for the article. Or maybe just "Mozilla Suite development and the SeaMonkey project" or "Mozilla Suite development and SeaMonkey"? --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 02:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::::::: Those are all pretty long titles so I would go with the shortest, or even "Mozilla Suite status and SeaMonkey" or similar, whatever you decide, as long as the word "SeaMonkey" is in the title.  Otherwise,  I would change the name of the first section from ''Development status of the Mozilla Suite'' to "Mozilla Suite code development and the SeaMonkey project" so that the word "SeaMonkey" is more visible right at the beginning of the article. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 13:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::::::: For now I've just changed the first header; appreciate the input and suggestions.  --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 
===Hot topic&mdash;Specific questions re: "SeaMonkey"===
Now that the discussion has been raging for a while, I've decided to list up what seem to be some of the key issues regarding the use of "SeaMonkey" in the kb. With numbers, for your commenting convenience. --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 
# In kb articles in general, should Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey be ''treated'' as two distinct products or as one product (i.e., akin to earlier and later versions of the same product)?
# If they are to be treated as two distinct products, should we normally refer to them using both product names ("Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey")?
# If we decide to normally use just one product name (either "Mozilla Suite" or "SeaMonkey") to refer to both, which name should we use?
# Should any special guidelines apply to the [[:Category:Preferences|Preferences]] articles (different from those for the regular user-support articles)?
# Should there be separate sets of categories for Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey?
 
Very brieflly, here are my own thoughts on the above. --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# In general, as one product. I don't think kb users will be confused by this, and it will be easier for us editors as well.
# No. Using both names all the time would be awkward (except perhaps in a simple template like [[Template:Tbsuite|this]]).
# SeaMonkey. That will seem the obvious choice two years from now.
# Not sure.
# No. I can't see any benefit in doing this.
------------------------------------------------
I've added my thoughts below:  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 21:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
# In general, as two products, similar to the way Netscape 7.xx and Mozilla Suite are treated.
# Either product name can be used with a note that it was written for one but may also apply to the other, or that it applies to both.  If writing new articles for both, use both names only if necessary to differentiate and note any differences within the article as is done now for "Firefox 1.0.7" and "Firefox 1.5" differences.  
#  ---
# I see the question as whether the "de facto" preference article guidelines [[:Category_talk:Preferences | here]] should be formalized and made easier to find by new editors  Check any of the [[:Category:Preferences]] articles that have been written already and you will see that they all follow the same format.  When I wrote a new preference article it was immediately edited to add the "Has an effect in" section  I omitted.
# Yes.  This is needed for new articles written for SeaMonkey 1.0 where the writer does not know  if the content also applies to Mozilla Suite, or knows for sure that it doesn't.
------------------------------------------------
 
==New proposal&mdash;"Startup and performance" category==
I'd appreciate some input on the title for this category, esp. as it would be best to choose a category name that works for all apps. Please add your comments at [[Talk:Rules/Categories#Some_new_categories]]. --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 11:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:This proposal is dead as far as I'm concerned. The only question is whether "Startup and performance" would make a viable category name for any application. If not, then it'd be best to remove the links from the category tree at [[Talk:Rules/Categories]]. --[[User:Wintogreen|wintogreen]] 08:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 
 
==Hot topic&mdash;Article-writing guidelines==
===(Also related to SeaMonkey references in the kb and making things less daunting to new editors)===
The [[Category talk:Preferences]] page includes guidelines for writing preference articles. Should these guidelines (and possibly guidelines for other article categories) be formalized?  Where would you want to place the guides in the kb so that people can find them?  Here is part of what I wrote to [[User Talk:Unarmed |  Unarmed on his  Talk page]] ''It never occurred to me to look on a Talk page for article-writing guidelines (I would think that anything on a "Talk" page is "informal"). I'd suggest formalizing those "guidelines" for anyone wanting to write a new preferences page.'' <snip> ''I'm assuming you want people to follow a certain format in a category like Preferences since that's the impression I got from Np.  If that's the case,  you should  link to an article explaining what you want followed in [[Rules]] or [[In-house style]].  I'm not sure where you would place an article like that but I would guess somewhere in [[:Category:MozillaZine_Knowledge_Base_organization]].'' [[Category_talk:Preferences#Moving_some_of_this_to_a_separate_page | I've also suggested]] that  the discussion about formalizing those guidelines be moved here. 
Since the question about SeaMonkey references in the kb has also come up,  the  [[In-house style]] page should be amended to make clear whether Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey should be referenced as the same product (e.g. "Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey") or separate products  ("Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey") and under what circumstances. For example,  [[Category_talk:Preferences#Formatting]]  is using ''Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey'' to refer to a single product, while in preference articles supposedly based on those guidelines, both are listed as separate products, as in the "UI" and "Has an effect in" sections of  [[browser.bookmarks.file]] and [[browser.cache.disk.capacity]].  I would suggest only using "SeaMonkey" as a separate product name  when referring to features not found in Mozilla Suite.  (Is the  "Has an effect in" subheading listing  Netscape SeaMonkey Firebird and Phoenix even needed?)  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 11:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:Um... you're assuming somebody knows whether it applies to either of those two applications when writing an article for another application. Thats not realistic, and just makes it more daunting to new editors. I know my first reaction to the change you propose would be I'd like to help out users of other applications but I don't need this grief, and only mention Thunderbird the next time I write a email article. Being slightly inaccurate is healthy in some circumstances. Especially when you consider the slow pace of updating existing articles.  [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 2:45AM, 18 January 2006 (PMT)
:: What proposal? I did propose that the  [[In-house style]] page should be amended to make clear whether Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey should be referenced as the same product (e.g. "Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey") or separate products  ("Mozilla Suite and SeaMonkey") and under what circumstances.  If you are responding to what I said immediately above, "I would suggest only using "SeaMonkey" as a separate product name  when referring to features not found in Mozilla Suite."..... then, in that case,  I was thinking about  the  "UI" and "Has an effect in" sections of preference articles, specifically  [[browser.cache.disk.capacity]]  and  [[browser.bookmarks.file]] in the context of article-writing guidelines, when the same preference applies to both products.  I also mentioned  in the separate "SeaMonkey" discussion above that I would probably stick with "Mozilla Suite" in new articles if the features applied to both and not mention SeaMonkey at all if it wasn't necessary.  In other words, no one should be forced to refer to SeaMonkey at all.  On the other hand,  maybe no one should be forced to refer to Moziila Suite either... is that what you're saying?  I would agree with you,  if  someone is writing a new article  and his only experience is with SeaMonkey, he should not reference Mozilla Suite or Thunderbirs at all, and the article should have a disclaimer that it was written for SeaMonkey, etc (another reason for a SeaMonkey category).  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 
==New Proposal&mdash;Creating an article for each profile file.==
[[Talk:Profile folder]]
:I just wanted to copy the subject and introductory paragraph from the [[Talk:Profile folder | Profile folder discussion page]] to here, since it better describes the new proposal:
:'''"Profile files" Category'''
:''What do you think of making a category that would contain an article for each file in the profile? We could describe what the file does, the consequences of deleting it, etc. Another thing we could do us have Category: Profile files (Firefox) and Category: Profile files (Thunderbird), etc. so each application's users can have a list that applies to them without seeing the cruft. --Np 18:25, 29 January 2006'' (UTC)
 
:By the way, the discussion has brought up issues related to other topics discussed here, such as ideas (guidelines?) on what to include in the new articles that describe the profile folder contents as well as how to categorize those new articles. It was mentioned that these considerations should not discourage editors from writing new articles.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 13:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::I like the idea of having seperate articles for each applications profile. I've noticed many users have problems finding the appropiate information due to text about other applications. I don't believe a rewrite would solve that problem. However, a seperate article for each file seems like overkill, and biased towards more technically knowledgeable users. I'd prefer to see the effort put into writing more issues articles instead. However, if the consensus is to write a seperate article for each file then each file in the profile article should be linked to the corresponding article. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::On the issue of separate articles for each file, I tend to agree about the "overkill" and technically-oriented bias....  I'm going to reply to that in the [[Talk:Profile folder]] discussion.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
==New Proposal&mdash;Note on the registration page.==
I want to add the following line in the [[Special:Userlogin | registration page]], under the "create new account" button.
 
The purpose of the Knowledge Base is to provide documentation. <font color=red><b>Post any questions in the [http://forums.mozillazine.org/  Mozillazine Forums], not here.</b></font>
 
Do you agree/disagree? Any comments on the wording? --[[User:Filipp0s|Filipp0s]] 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 
Sounds fine though I'd suggest you use the same text as in http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page , though the extra visual emphasis you added seems like a good idea for the registration page.
 
A related question is what should we do if somebody uses a articles talk page to ask questions that '''clearly''' belong in a support forum. Right now it seems like they're just being ignored. I'd like to establish the convention that whoever stumbles across this should delete that text as long as there is no question about whether its part of a valid discussion of the article. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:10, 21 January 2011

This page has been created for several reasons.

  • It would be nice to have a place where new editors can introduce themselves and meet existing editors.
  • It would be good to allow new editors to safely propose content changes (minor or major) prior to implementing them.
  • It would be good to have a central location to discuss the style, content and organization of this Knowledge Base. (Some of the ideas in Talk:Knowledge Base can be migrated here, leaving that page solely for discussion of the front page article itself.
  • This page was an attempt to address incidents that have occurred on the KB where some groups of editors have been unaware of major changes being made by other groups of editors.

This page is the primary place to announce new suggestions. Whenever possible, issues should be discussed in a more appropriate place, such as the discussion page of the article or category that the suggestion affects. Once suggestions are resolved, they are moved to Knowledge Base changes/Archive.

You can request somebody create an article at Requested articles .

Copyright/License problems

I suggest we think about adding a short "Copyright/License problems" section in Rules_and_guidelines that sets peoples expectations on what they can legitimately copy/modify. I'm splitting this out as a separate topic from "Using external sources and references in KB articles". Please discuss this at Talk:Rules_and_guidelines . Tanstaafl 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Roland Tanglao (tech support lead at Mozilla Messaging) is going to talk to Kerz about the possibility of our using a license compatible with the license SuMoMo (The official knowledge base at support.mozillamessaging.com) uses. The issue came up when we planned some events where people on the tb-support-crew AT mozilla.org mailing list (mainly from the MozillaZine and Mozilla Messaging/GetSatisfaction communities) collaborate on writing KB articles. They are initially developed here and then ported to their site. That doesn't raise any legal issues if they are started from scratch. However, someday we may want to merge content from several articles (some of which are on their site) when creating a new article, and there is always the issue of not being able to use updates added to the SuMoMo version of the article on this sites version of the same article unless you start spending a lot of effort tracking and justifying stuff.

See the archive of license issues. Tanstaafl 11:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the new SeaMonkey category

A new Category:SeaMonkey was created awhile back, which went under my radar ;-). I was thinking, why not use this new category to track SeaMonkey 2 articles for now? I started a Discussion page here: Category talk:SeaMonkey Alice 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Skierpage is looking for advice on how to update old Mozilla Suite stuff for SeaMonkey, especially for Linux. Tanstaafl 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Profile Manager

The profile manager is going to be eliminated after Firefox 4.0. [1] [2] Thunderbird will probably also do the same. [3] The separate profile manager utility is not designed for end users, and its not clear yet whether it will even be bundled with the Mozilla application.

How do we want to handle documenting both? Its already very awkward documenting how to use the profile manager for multiple applications and multiple operating systems in one article. That is the reason why Moving_your_profile_folder_-_Thunderbird was created for example. Given the different release schedules for Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird, and how some users keep using old major versions for a very long time we will probably have to deal with both for at least several years.

Do we want to adopt some naming convention in other articles to make it clear which one we're talking about or do we want to refer to both as the profile manager?

I realize this is early but I'd like to document how to use the replacement with Thunderbird (if only to get more people to try it and provide feedback to the author) and don't want to make that a isolated stand alone article. Tanstaafl 02:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already added this note to the top of the Profile Manager article:
Note: Mozilla is planning to remove the built-in Profile Manager from future Mozilla applications (after Firefox 4.0) and a standalone "Profile Manager" application will be available. "Profile Manager 1.0 Beta 1" is described here. For more information, see this blog post and this article at MDC. [4] [5] [6]
According to bug 539524 comment 22 the standalone PM application will probably not be bundled with future Firefox downloads when it is removed from Firefox and will be a separate, optional download. I thought that we might make a template similar to the above note and add it to the top of all articles about profiles. When the built-in Profile Manager is actually removed (sometime after Firefox 4.0) we could add something to the effect that the article or article section applies to Firefox 4.0 and below. We could then create a new "Profile Manager application" or "Profile Manager utility" article and link to it, just like we have for the MozBackup standalone utility. Alice 14:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)