MozillaZine

Knowledge Base changes

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 20:37, 9 July 2008
LoudNoise (Talk | contribs)
(Using AMO links instead of author's website whenever possible)
<-- Previous diff
Current revision
Alice Wyman (Talk | contribs)
(Replacement of Profile Manager)
Line 11: Line 11:
You can request somebody create an article at [[Requested articles]] . 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)+
-==Knowledge Base changes==+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)
-A discussion by interested parties regarding the MozillaZine Knowledge Base, in the context of planning for improved Mozilla end-user support, is taking place. Details at http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.planning+==Using the new SeaMonkey category==
-<snip>+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)
-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)+
-'''Update:''' Minutes of the end-user support meetings were posted to the [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.planning mozilla.support.planning newsgroup], along with an announcement linking to drafts of a [http://wiki.mozilla.org/Support:Overview Firefox Support Overview] and [http://wiki.mozilla.org/Support:PRD Support Product Requirements Document]. Proposals related to the KB include one log-in for forums and knowledge base management, account levels (admin, senior moderator, moderator, senior editor, editor, volunteer) as well as analysis and metrics to include top viewed articles (problems). Division of articles into "How To’s" (tutorials or best practices initially populated with content from “Firefox Help”) and "Troubleshooting" (“support” that helps users solve problems) was proposed, with the troubleshooting section being initially populated with ''MozillaZine Knowledge Base content that will be organized in a tagging structure that incorporated most frequently accessed questions''. Creation of ''KB style guides'' and ''editorial approval processes'' for content and style were also proposed. See http://wiki.mozilla.org/Support:PRD#Knowledge_base_requirements for details. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 10:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)+[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)
-===SUMO use of MozillaZine KB articles===+==Replacement of Profile Manager==
-'''Update:''' There is a current discussion taking place [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=619401 here] concerning how [http://support.mozilla.com/kb/Firefox+Support+Home+Page.com the official Firefox support (SUMO) KB] should credit content derived from MozillaZine KB articles. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)+
-==Screenshots - confusion?==+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'm worried about us posting screenshots of dialogs to describe how to do something and some poor granny trying to actually click on buttons in the screenshot. What can we do about this?--[[User:Np|Np]] 16:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)+
-: I don't think there is much we can do to prevent people from making silly mistakes, except maybe to add something like "Sample image: do not click" to each screenshot ..... it's funny, because I've tried using scroll bars on screenshots myself, on occasion :-D [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)+
-==Application specific articles==+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.
-I've noticed a recent trend towards having more articles be application specific. My first impression is that this seems to be due to +
-* Recent awareness that you can include screen shots in the article. [[Creating_a_new_Firefox_profile_on_Windows]] and [[Corrupt_localstore.rdf]] for example are articles that at one time would have at least been written to cover both Firefox and SeaMonkey, and might have also covered Thunderbird.+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?
-* Frustration over the density and problems in navigating an article that cover many applications, such as [[Profile_folder]]+
-* Mozilla's plans to create their own knowledge base, using migrated Firefox articles from mozillaZine. +
-I've frequently pushed for Thunderbird specific versions of some articles, including one for [[Profile_folder]] but I have mixed feelings about this trend. There are some cases where it makes a lot of sense to address multiple applications in one article. I'm also concerned over what effect this has on whether editors who tend to focus on browser specific articles will continue working on the mozillaZine knowledge base after Mozilla creates their own for just Firefox. Thoughts?+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)
-As an aside, does anybody object to my creating a calendar category? [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)+:I've already added this note to the top of the [[Profile Manager]] article:<br>
- +:{| {{prettytable}}
-:I can see advantages in combined application articles such as [[Profile Folder]]. One reason being, the same files may be used in different application profiles (in some cases they can be copied over directly, as with mimeTypes.rdf and bookmarks.html). Firefox users are in the majority, though, and it's hard for editors who don't have experience with Mozilla Suite or SeaMonkey to include it in articles. I use SeaMonkey about as often as I use Firefox (and I still have Mozilla Suite installed as well) so I try to include SeaMonkey where possible, such as in plugin articles. In the case of [[Changing media handling behaviour]] I've included screenshots for both Firefox and SeaMonkey. Regarding ''Mozilla's plans to create their own knowledge base, using migrated Firefox articles from mozillaZine'', when that happens and if my contributions are no longer needed for Firefox articles because Mozilla folks have taken them over and restrict new articles to selected editors, I can always go over to SeaMonkey and start fixing up that KB a bit. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-:I think combined application articles are good when the info provided only differs slightly, for example by a [[Object has been blocked|single menu sequence]]. In [[profile folder]], about half the article doesn't apply to any given user. [[Creating a new Firefox profile on Windows]] was created not to avoid mentioning SeaMonkey, but to avoid the "but if"s, "except if"s , and "you can also"s that plague the profile manager article.--[[User:Np|Np]] 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-==Removing obsolete information==+
-I notice that some articles, such as [[Multiple_SMTP_servers_-_Thunderbird]] have multiple sections for obsolete versions. I suggest we add a rule of thumb that such text should be removed if its for a version thats more than two major releases ago to [[In-house_style]] . i.e. since Thunderbird is at 2.0.0.6 keep the text about 1.5 or later but dump the 1.0.x text if it simplifies the article. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-: I agree about removing obsolete sections, especially if the "obsolete" part is long and uninteresting. I think though, that e.g. in about:config articles, the lines "Applies to Mozilla since 19980425" or "Applies to Firefox since release 0.9" etc. can stay. -- [[User:Tonymec|Tony]] 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-::Agreed. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 10:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-I have no problem with the rule about removing obsolete information but I don't think it belongs in the [[In-house style]] article, which mainly covers things like commonly used terms, formatting and punctuation, tables, and other style issues. I think that a rule about removing obsolete information is more about keeping KB articles technically accurate and up-to-date and would fit better in the [[Rules and guidelines]] article, which already includes a "Quality" section and "Technical information" subsection. I think that the "Removing obsolete information" paragraph would fit in better there, either as a subsection of "Quality" or as a separate section. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 12:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I added a section to [[Talk:In-house style#Keeping_this_article_about_style|Talk:In-house style]] for discussion. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 13:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)+
- +
-:If we did move it the Quality section doesn't seem appropriate - its own section would be the best bet. We have text about how to make an article more usable in both articles, so I guess its really a question of whether you think it falls in to the guidelines or the look consistent camp. I prefer the current location, but it doesn't really matter. I have no problem with you moving it after waiting a couple of days to see if anybody else has a opinion. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)+
-:: OK, I'll wait a few days. I'm also copying your reply to [[Talk:In-house style#Keeping_this_article_about_style]] with a link to this discussion for the background. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 14:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)+
- +
-==Prep for switch to new web site==+
-We're getting closer to switching to the new web site. Kerz has stated he'll enable automatic account creation when we switch. See [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=556178&start=30 this thread] for more details. He has created a subforum for the knowledge base, so we won't be limited to just talk pages and this article when discussing some issues. He has offered (in the moderators forum) to move a small number of threads to the new web site if they're identified ahead of time. However, given the recent history of lost accounts and the fact nobody has started to make a list of the threads I suggest we assume the worst, and start migrating information in any referenced threads into the article. It will also give us a chance to make the information more up to date and easier to find/read. After the move we can update any links to dedicated discussion threads for extensions/themes. Does this seem reasonable?+
- +
-I notice Alice has converted the request for comments template in preparation for the move. Any other changes that we should think about? [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 01:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)+
-: In the "Request for Comments" template, I switched from forum thread link to [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=11 MozillaZine Site Discussion forum] since I assumed that links to the main forums (Firefox, Thunderbird, Site Discussion, etc.) would be redirected to the corresponding new forum. (We also link to the [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=11 MozillaZine Site Discussion forum] at [[MozillaZine_Knowledge_Base:About#Commenting_on_articles]]). Once we switch to the new forum, we could link that template and the About page directly to the new Knowledge Base subforum. But, I'm not so worried about that. You said, :''I suggest we assume the worst, and start migrating information in any referenced threads into the article.'' What do you mean by "referenced threads"? We have many, many references to forum threads in KB articles. You don't mean that all those references will be lost, do you? I have an entire web page of useful threads that I reference quite a bit: http://wymette.home.att.net/mozforum.html (I haven't updated it since August 2007, but I do update it from my bookmarks!). [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)+
-::You have two hundred and forty six links on that page, and some of them are for pretty long threads. I have difficulty seeing Kerz move all of them, especially if several other people have long lists that don't overlap that much with yours. Your guess is as good as mine what will actually happen, but nobody has even started to compile a list in the five months since the beta of the new web site was first available, and its called a "grand forums restart" for a reason.+
-::My impression is that there aren't many references to threads in Thunderbird articles, and most users in the Thunderbird forums point to articles rather than old threads. I'm going to start replacing some of the references in the Thunderbird articles as a precaution, but it wouldn't be a disaster if we suddenly lost access to those threads. I'm basically trying to suggest contingency planning for Firefox and SeaMonkey, which are much more vulnerable. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-::: ''You have two hundred and forty six links on that page'' There are probably more, since I've just updated [http://wymette.home.att.net/mozforum.html my mozforum page]. I don't care if the threads are carried over to the new forums, I just don't want the linked pages to "disappear" altogether (then I'll have to depend on google's cache or the [http://www.archive.org/web/web.php wayback machine] to get that content). I really hope that all those threads aren't lost. Besides the KB, other sites link to our forum threads, notably Bugzilla reports. If I can find the time, I'll try to go through some KB articles and see what information in linked forum threads should be incorporated into the KB (some are simply references to justify the information given in the KB, e.g., forum references in the [[Problematic extensions]] article). [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 14:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)+
-::: I'm going to assume that links to forums.mozillazine.org threads in KB articles, Bugzilla, google groups, newsgroups, etc., <u>will not be lost</u>.... that they'll be archived and available for "read-only" access. Maybe you can confirm, but that's how I understand it, based on the following [http://boards.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=363#p363 Nov 3 2007 post in the new Site Discussion forum], by "steviex"+
-:::{| {{prettytable}}+
|- |-
-| ''It looks like Threads that are reposted here need rewriting to remove any HTML formatting, and repace it with BBCode.... Any links back to the old board should be OK, as I would guess that the archived posts would be viewed with phpBB 2, in the old format.'' +|'''''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]''
|- |-
|} |}
-:::...Even so, it wouldn't hurt to prepare for the worst and incorporate as much information as possible into KB articles, instead of depending on forum links. I created a new [[Problems printing web pages]] article that used to be just a forum link in the [[Issues with Firefox]] article, with that in mind. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 18:39, 14 November 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)
- +
-===KB articles to update for the new website ===+
-*KB articles that tell people to post KB requests or feedback to a specific thread, including [[Create_a_knowledge_base_account]] and [[Special:Userlogin]].+
-*KB articles that link to a specific forum, such as MozillaZine Site Discussion, may not be redirected properly and may need updating to the new Site Discussion forum or to the Knowledge Base subforum on the new board.+
-*[[Rules and guidelines]] links to [http://forums.mozillazine.org/rules.php forums.mozillazine.org/rules] and that page may no longer exist after the move, so we'll either need to update the link or edit the article to summarize those rules. +
-All articles in the [[:Category:MozillaZine_Knowledge_Base_organization]] should be reviewed for needed updates. If I find any articles outside of that category I'll post them here. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-==IMAP category==+
-I'd like to add a IMAP category. We're seeing more new IMAP users due to Gmail, its awkward for new IMAP users to find many IMAP-centric articles when they don't have the right vocabulary, and I'd like to write some more IMAP-centric articles. I don't see any need for a corresponding category for POP - its the mainstream. We already have a Calendar , a Newgroups (Thunderbird) and a RSS (Thunderbird) category. Any objections or concerns? [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)+
-:I looked over [[Rules/Categories#Creating a new (sub)category]] for the background and did a [[Special:Search?ns0=1&search=IMAP&searchx=Search |KB search on IMAP]] to make sure there were enough existing articles to justify a new category (there were 7 with "IMAP" in the title). I don't have a problem with a new IMAP category except that it should be named IMAP - Thunderbird (with a dash, not parentheses) if that's the name you were going to use. Since IMAP mail applies to both Thunderbird and SeaMonkey, I would prefer simply naming the category IMAP mail or similar. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)+
-::I'd intended to simply use "IMAP". Since that doesn't seem to be a problem (its not application specific) I'll go with that. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)+
-::: I see you created [[:Category:IMAP]] and placed articles under it but you haven't yet [[Rules/Categories#Categorizing_categories|categorized the new category]]. Unless you had something more specific in mind, I guess it could be categorized under [[:Category:Thunderbird]] and [[:Category:Mozilla Suite]]? [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)+
-:::: Done. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 23:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-==KB account creation==+
-I've created a mozillaZineKB at gmail dot com account to handle new account requests, sent the password to all SysOps (except for np who has publicly stated he's not interested in handling requests), and updated the login page. We used to average only about one request every two days before, and the login page encourages users (if they have a forum account) to request a knowledge base account using the moderation requests thread in the mozillaZine site discussion forum. Thats practical now that most moderators are also SysOps. However, we probably should come up with some conventions to avoid problems due to multiple people reading a message requesting an account. Its a IMAP account by the way, I figured that would make it easier to monitor. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-Related KB article: [[Create_a_knowledge_base_account]] [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 12:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)+
- +
-==Use of color==+
-A discussion was started asking for for opinions on using color in KB articles. Please post any comments to [[Talk:In-house style#Use of color]]. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)+
- +
-==Using external sources and references in KB articles==+
- +
-I've moved the discussion about using content from other sources and referencing certain material to [[Talk:Rules_and_guidelines]] . [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)+
- +
-==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]] . [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)+
- +
-==In-house style: Special formatting==+
-There is a current discussion about whether to change the [[In-house style]] guidelines for special formatting for folder and file names and paths. It has been suggested to use ''italics'' instead of <tt>monospace font</tt> for folder/file paths. Also under discussion is whether to add a new guideline covering when and how to format preference names; '''bold text''' has been suggested. Please add any comments to the [[Talk:In-house_style|In-house style discussion page]] under [[Talk:In-house_style#Use_of_monospace_font_for_path_folder_and_file_names|Use of monospace font for path folder and file names]] and [[Talk:In-house_style#Preference_names|Preference names]]. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)+
- +
-== Consolidate show hidden files and directories information==+
-Its been [[Knowledge_Base_changes/Archive#Consolidate_show_hidden_files_and_directories_information | archived]] after [[Show_hidden_files_and_folders]] was created. Please continue the discussion about the article and how to use it at its [[Talk:Show_hidden_files_and_folders | talk]] page. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 08:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)+
- +
-==Using AMO links instead of author's website whenever possible==+
-Asked in [[Talk:Updating_add-ons]]: ''A question though. Some of the pages here link to AMO, others to the author's website. Is there a rule of thumb to be followed here?'' I answered that I don't see a rule in [[Rules and guidelines]] and that I've been using addons.mozilla.org links wherever possible, for security reasons and because the install will go through seamlessly from AMO while installing from another site may [[Unable_to_install_themes_or_extensions_-_Firefox#Allowing_the_site_to_install|trigger a yellow message bar, asking the user to allow the site]], unless the install link actually goes to AMO. Should there be a rule to use AMO links for add-ons whenever possible, if an AMO link can be found? If no one has any thoughts on the matter I'll just assume that no rule is needed and it can be left up to whomever is editing a page. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)+
-: I'd say use AMO links unless there are good reasons to the contrary; but circumstances may vary: for instance, sometimes the author's site offers a more recent version, either a test version or the latest release not yet uploaded to AMO. On the whole though, I believe using AMO links when possible is a good rule of thumb. -- [[User:Tonymec|Tony]] 07:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)+
- +
-I posted a link here in [[Talk:Rules and guidelines]]. Let's wait a a few days for more comments then, if no one objects, I can add a short "Add-on links" paragraph under [[Rules and guidelines#Article content]], simply saying, ''As a general rule, link to [https://addons.mozilla.org addons.mozilla.org (AMO)] whenever possible, instead of linking to the author's website or elsewhere, unless you have a good reason to use an alternate link.'' [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)+
- +
- +
-Thanks Alice. I didn't think to post the question here. I agree with everyone else here -- AMO should be it.+
---[[User:LoudNoise|LoudNoise]] 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)+

Current revision

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)