Knowledge Base changes: Difference between revisions

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(247 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
*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 was an attempt to address 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.


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.
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]].


Once suggestions are resolved, they are moved to [[Knowledge Base changes/Archive]].
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.
* I guess I'm new, I am "name already taken" from the forums, hello to everyone! --[[User:Lethargy|Lethargy]] 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


==Upload file enabled==
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)
{| {{prettytable}}
|-
|''Copied from Np's Talk page:''
[[Special:Log/upload]] - I see that the "Upload file" feature is now enabled, or was this just for testing? I uploaded Image:Fx15safe.png just now for the [[Safe Mode]] article and was wondering if it would be OK to do the same for other articles for which we have images that are now linked from other locations such as [[Summary of Mozilla products]]. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
:It's enabled now. Go ahead and use it, I have already. [[Gray bar below status bar]]--[[User:Np|Np]] 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
|-
|}
 
I just uploaded the images used in the [[Summary of Mozilla products]] and [[Live Bookmarks - Firefox]] articles and replaced the external links with the new kb.mozillazine.org links.  A SysOp will need to do the [[Knowledge_Base |KB Main page]] (which now uses images linked from Imageshack) since it's locked. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


I've created [[Template:Right-pic]] which floats an image off to the right. See it in action at [[Gray bar below status bar]]--[[User:Np|Np]] 01:47, 28 December 2006 (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]] [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


==Punctuation or other symbols in article names==
[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 just came across a link on the forums to a KB article that included a contraction in the name ([[Images or animations don't load]]) and the link was cut off before the apostrophe.  That article has already been renamed but the problem with using punctuation or other typographic symbols in article names has been brought up before, [[Talk:Knowledge_Base_changes#Requesting_an_article_name_change |just recently on this article's Talk page]].  I was wondering if we should set a rule that article names should not contain certain [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation punctuation] marks or symbols such as apostrophes or parentheses, since it causes link problems.  For example, instead of [[Video or audio doesn't play]] the article should be named  [[Video or audio does not play]] (I just moved it).  I was going to suggest this in [[Talk:Article naming conventions]] but thought I should bring it up here.  If there are no objections, I would like to add a short paragraph to [[Article naming conventions]] on "Use of punctuation marks or symbols" stating that parentheses and apostrophes should not be used in article names and that other punctuation  should be avoided, if possible (the exception, of coursewould be about:protocol,  file name or preference name articles).  I could use the "Images or animations don't load" article as example.    [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 12:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


:Thats a good idea. We need to be conservative in what characters are allowed in the article name or we run the risk that this type of problem will reoccur every time the Wiki software is updated. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
==Replacement of Profile Manager==
::The issue isn't with the Wiki software, it's with the forum software.--[[User:Np|Np]] 06:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'd say we create a list of characters that shouldn't be used rather than discourage all punctuation. We actually currently encourage hyphens.--[[User:Np|Np]] 06:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::Instead of listing all symbols not to use,  we could simply say something like:
::'''''Punctuation marks or symbols'''''
::''Avoid using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation punctuation marks] or typographical symbols in article names such as exclamation points, parentheses, apostrophes, quotation marks, etc., because it can result in broken links when posting the article URL in mail or newsgroup messages or on webpage forums.  Exceptions include article names consisting of filenames, about:protocols and preference articles, or when adding a dash (hyphen) followed by the application name to the end of the article name, as noted above.
::''*Bad: <nowiki>[[Yahoo! Music videos don't work]] </nowiki>''
::''*Bad: <nowiki>[[Standard diagnostic (Thunderbird)]] </nowiki>''
:: I would be fine with a list, whatever people decide.    [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


:::I prefer Alice's latest text (rather than a list). She states when hyphens are appropriate etc. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
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.  
:::: My preference would be not using a list and using the above (edited) text, if only because I wouldn't be sure whether any list would be complete or not.   [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: The text proposed is good. I didn't mean an exhaustive list, just some common examples of titles with discouraged characters. An example using parenthesis would be a good addition.--[[User:Np|Np]] 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::OK, I edited the sample paragraph again. If no one objects I'll add it, or someone else can. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: Added [[Article naming conventions#Punctuation marks or symbols]]. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 23:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::Found a link in my collection that needs moving [[Image_tooltips_don't_work]]--[[User:Dickvl|Dickvl]] 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I just moved it, thanks. The problem is, when you get redirected to the new article, it comes up with the old article's URL and people keep bookmarking and linking the old URLS. I've been updating those links in the Issues and Faqs articles and in other articles, when I notice them. I see you've been doing that, too.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: I had updated my links and changed the links with single quotes and to be sure I tested them. I also did a KB search to see if any links needed to be modified (hmm: "don't" doesn't work on its own; lol, that's two of them).<br>I just noticed another one in my collection: [[Flash#Flash_files_don.E2.80.99t_play]]. How to deal with those? --[[User:Dickvl|Dickvl]] 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::: You make a good point, that article sections containing certain characters (such as [[Unable_to_install_themes_or_extensions_-_Firefox#Extensions..2A_files | Extensions.* files]] in the [[Unable to install themes or extensions - Firefox]] article?) might also cause link problems.  You can edit existing articles to eliminate the special characters (I just  changed "Extensions.* files" to "Extensions.xxx files" in that article)  but existing links will no longer go to the specific article section.  I could add something about avoiding punctuation marks or symbols in section headings to [[In-house style]], if no one objects.   [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


==Plugin warning==
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.
We have [[WMP|various]] [[Quicktime|pages]] on plug-ins that include "Security alert" sections. These sections specifically mention noteworthy vulnerabilities for the plug-in in question. In my opinion, we shouldn't discuss specific plug-in vulnerabilities. There are few reasons for this:
* We're not close to the plug-in vendors. It's very likely we could be very late in discussing a severe vulnerability, or might not even hear about it at all. For example, the page on [[Flash]] doesn't discuss any vulnerabilities, though undoubtedly there have been a few big ones over the years.
* We're not experts on the workings of plug-ins, and we shouldn't be viewed as such or as being in any way responsible to disclose their problems to our users.
* We have no data on plug-in usage, so it's difficult to tell when a warning about a specific version should be taken down due to the fact that no one uses it any more.
* Beyond "Make sure you're using the latest version", few users care about the specifics of the vulnerabilities.
Instead, I recommend that we include a template on the top of each plug-in's page that states a few things:
* Plug-ins are not created by Mozilla.
* Plug-ins are not updated as part of Mozilla products' updates.
* Mozilla products do not provide protection against vulnerabilities in plug-ins.
* Instructions (or a link to instructions) on how to check for and/or update to the latest version of the plug-in.
Comments? --[[User:Np|Np]] 05:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


: ''For example, the page on [[Flash]] doesn't discuss any vulnerabilities.....'' [http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=Flash&diff=31016&oldid=28947 It used to] but Flash had three security updates last year and we weren't keeping up.  I thought it best to remove the section and, instead, link to the [http://www.adobe.com/support/security/#flashplayer Adobe page on security vulnerabilites] under "External links".    A template for each article, like you suggested, may or may not be helpful and maybe I should have at least added a note to the Flash article about keeping up to date for secutity reasons, I don't know.  I wouldn't be against removing the security warnings in other plugin articles like [[Quicktime]] and [[Java]]  if a link to a page that discusses security vulnerabilites in these programs could be likewise added. Regarding the  [[Windows Media Player]] article's security alert, see my reply [[Talk:Windows_Media_Player#Security_alert |here]].  I think it would be fine to  add some general information about plugin updates and security to the [[:Category:Plugins]] page, whether or not we add templates to each plugin article.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
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 didn't see any risks in the WMP and Quicktime pages. I don't buy the argument that any security information is useless since we're supposed to always run Windows update. There are sometimes good reasons not to run update (or not to update certain software if you do a custom update). Pointing to other web sites for detailed information about security vulnerabilities seems a good way to limit our involvement, and set peoples expectations. I think most users have realistic expectations about how up to date any information is.  
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)


:: The main thing I have against the proposed template is it seems like a Mozilla lawyers instinctive response and spoils the impression that this is a independent community web site. As an aside, the proposed wording helps mislead users into thinking we're part of Mozilla. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:I've already added this note to the top of the [[Profile Manager]] article:<br>  
:::My comment wasn't meant to be the actual wording; it was just some bases that I felt we should cover.--[[User:Np|Np]] 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:{| {{prettytable}}
 
:* Plug-ins are not created by Mozilla.
:* Plug-ins are not updated as part of Mozilla products' updates.
:* Mozilla products do not provide protection against vulnerabilities in plug-ins.
:* Instructions (or a link to instructions) on how to check for and/or update to the latest version of the plug-in.
 
:Excellent idea.  And please add a reference to bug 271559, "Countermeasures for Java/plugin/extension vulnerabilities (disable, warn)".
:[[User:AnotherGuest.|AnotherGuest.]] 8 May 07
First shot (example, may not be the actual instructions we give):
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="preference" style="background: #F7FFFC; margin: .5em 2.5%; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #B8CCC5">Windows Media Player is a third-party plug-in not supported by Mozilla. Out of date plug-ins may cause crashes or security problems; you should ensure Windows Media Player is up-to-date by checking [http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com Windows Update].</div>
--[[User:Np|Np]] 16:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
::That template seems innocuous. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Is that good or bad?--[[User:Np|Np]] 01:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Good (it addressed most of my concerns) [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 08:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 
: "Windows Media Player" isn't really a plugin, though, it's an application that includes a browser plugin.  Same with the [[Quicktime]]  Player and [[Adobe Reader]].  Also the term "third-party" may be confusing, and most plugin articles already include a link to download the application/plugin so another download link is unnecessary.  If you do want  some sort of template, why not just say something like, <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="preference" style="background: #F7FFFC; margin: .5em 2.5%; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #B8CCC5">Quicktime is not supported by Mozilla.  Outdated browser plugins may cause crashes or security problems.</div> What I see missing, though, is a link to a page with security information, similar to what's in the [[Flash]] "External links" section (or in the WMP article intro) but I guess that could remain part of the content of the article itself.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Saying that WMP, Quicktime, and Adobe aren't plugins is just semantics. We call them plug-ins all over the KB, and in the context of Firefox, that's what they are. I actually think linking to a security info page would be better than a download page because they will usually contain info on how to upgrade anyway. I made the template to allow whatever text you want to put, whether it's "use Windows Update" or "read this article".--[[User:Np|Np]] 01:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background: #F7FFFC; margin: .5em 2.5%; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #B8CCC5">Windows Media Player is a plug-in not supported by Mozilla. Out of date plug-ins may cause crashes or security problems; you should ensure Windows Media Player is up-to-date by reading [http://example.com this article] at Microsoft.com.</div>
 
:I think this warning misses some of the essential points in your bullets, in particular that Fx provides no protection against vulnerabilities, and does not update them.  But beyond that, there are two other problems with the warning as stated:
 
:(1) can up-to-date plugins cause problems?  (certainly).
 
:(2) what does "not supported" mean?  To some people that's a pejorative.  It means it might not work right, when what we actually mean is that Moz can't fix it.  --[[User:AnotherGuest.|AnotherGuest.]] 9 May 07
 
==Knowledge Base changes==
A discussion by interested parties regarding the MozillaZine Knowledge Base, in the context of planning for improved Mozilla end-user support, is taking place today.  I copied the following from the announcement at http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.planning
{| {{prettytable}}
|-
|-
|Subject: First End-User Support Meeting Tomorrow!<br>
|'''''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]''
Date: 7 May 2007 16:58:18 -0700<br>
From: Samuel Sidler <samuel.sidler@gmail.com><br>
Organization: http://groups.google.com<br>
Newsgroups: mozilla.support.planning<br>
We'll be posting minutes of the meeting to the newsgroup so if you're
unable to call in, feel free to reply to that post with any comments
you might have.
* Tuesday, May 8, 10:00 am PDT
* 650-903-0800 x91 Conf #284
* 1-800-707-2533 (pin 369) Conf #284 (US)
* Join #customersupport on irc.mozilla.org for the IRC back-channel
<br>
Agenda
<br>
1. General overview of Firefox support efforts
 
2. Current state of knowledge base (mozillazine)
:* Process for adding content, any learnings, any shortcomings
3. New Ideas and Solution Brainstorm
 
4. Action Items/Next Steps
:* Take inventory of KB (plus analyzing data)
:* Organizing KB (tagging, etc)
:* Who can post/edit (change control)
:* KB best practices and style guide
:* Discussion of module owner; who resolves questions?
:* Vendors and Infrastructure research
|-  
|-  
|}
|}
Forum discussion of end user support, including the KB, [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=494282&start=75 here]. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
: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)
 
==Resolving logjams==
We seem to be doing a good job of avoiding editing wars but not having a process to resolve logjams prevents us from improving some articles quality. The proposed [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Dispute_resolution_process dispute resolution process] is not the right vehicle to do that since its basically a way to deal with people behaving badly. Nobody is behaving badly with a logjam, they're just not making any progress and there is no obvious way to resolve the issue.  
 
A good example is [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird Plain text e-mail - Thunderbird], written by Guanxi . It basically redefines plain text messages as non-MIME ASCII messages, which doesn't meet the needs of most of our users. Rod Whiteley wrote [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Mail_content_types Mail content types] which overlaps some of that article, and has more of a end user focus. There seem to be two process problems:
 
# We don't have any recourse if a author strongly disagrees with feedback in the talk pages without running the risk of editing wars and/or needless aggravation.
 
# The two authors agree it would make sense to merge the two articles but can't agree on a process to do that.
 
:''Note: The [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Talk:Mail_content_types talk page for mail content types] has most of the discussion about merging the articles and issues with the plain text article. I'm clearly biased, but that helps make my point. I originally gave up trying to get Guanxi to make some changes when it just seemed to pointlessly aggravate him, over a year ago''.
 
If we can find a good way to resolve logjams (that doesn't run roughshod over peoples feelings or get abused to force one point of view) that might make it easier to make some progress on quality control and user feedback issues. Suggestions? [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 09:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 
: You said that, ''The proposed [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Dispute_resolution_process dispute resolution process] is not the right vehicle to do that since its basically a way to deal with people behaving badly.''  I never thought of it that way. I said [[Knowledge_Base_changes/Archive#Ownership_and_dispute_resolution |here]] that, ''Such a mediation request could also be looked at as a request for "quality review" of the article, since after all, what we really want is for the article to be well written, understandable by the intended reader and technically accurate.'' The same conflict resolution process applies. 
:You also said, ''The two authors agree it would make sense to merge the two articles but can't agree on a process to do that.''  In this specific case where two articles overlap, if I were mediating the dispute I would suggest that the overlapping content be removed from the more recent article ([[Mail content types]] created by Rod Whiteley on 28 January 2007)  and added to the original article ([[Plain text e-mail - Thunderbird]] first edited by  Guanxi 2 February 2005).  If the more recent article contains enough information to justify a new article it could be rewritten with just the new content; alternately, the two articles could be fully merged into the original article, whatever works best.  A draft of the merged article could be worked out on the original article's discussion page or either user's page, whichever works for both parties, similar to the way the [[Error loading websites]] article was merged on my [[ User:Alice Wyman/Proposed article |user page for proposed articles]], as discussed in [[Talk:Error_loading_websites]].  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Without having any guidelines or someone in charge, the way to resolve these issues is through compromise and majority rule. I'm sure you've already tried compromise, so all that's left is majority rule. Majority rule is more palatable the more people concur. I'll read up on the subject and throw in my opinion to see if that helps to resolve things.--[[User:Np|Np]] 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 
The point I was trying to make about the dispute resolution process was that if the authors were behaving badly you can force them to let somebody mediate the dispute etc. or suffer the consequences. However, nobody is behaving badly, and if they're not interested in the dispute being mediated (which carries a certain stigma , is a unpleasant process, and assumes there is a neutral mediator available they both can agree on) or can't agree on a compromise then we need other mechanisms. That seems to leave either organized social pressure or some form of majority rule. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 22:11, 9 May 2007 (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)