Wiki forum

From OpenFOAMWiki
Revision as of 06:21, 18 May 2010 by Hoogs (Talk | contribs)

This page provides a place to discuss ideas and issues related to this wiki. Precede lines with one or more ":" characters to simulate threads and end with four tilde characters ~~~~ to put a name and date stamp, e.g.

Here's my very important statement Pompous 03:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I second that Sycophant 10:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No no, you're all wrong! Contrarian 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1 Mediawiki

Bernhard has done a great job of keeping the wiki back end up to date, thanks Benhard!!! Hoogs 03:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

1.1 Subpages

Could we turn on subpage functionality? Its a simple switch. Its already on by default in User pages, e.g. User:Hoogs. As long as users keep hierarchy to only a few levels (1-3), it shouldn't do any harm, and can help give a little more logical structure to the info that we have. Hoogs 03:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Switched it on for the Main-namespace (havn't tested it though). Is it necessary for any other namespaces? Bgschaid 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Bernhard! Hoogs 05:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1.2 References

Could we add the Cite extension? Hoogs 05:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. At least it is reported as installed. Could you test it and add a short notice to the "Editing Basics" Bgschaid 09:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Bernhard, done and done, works well, thanks. Hoogs 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1.3 Math rendering

Bernhard, math rendering looks a bit fuzzy on this wiki compared with say Wikipedia. Is it possible to check/increase the png conversion quality? There should be a line in math/ or thereabouts which does the imagemagick conversion (search for "quality"). Hoogs 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Er I found that changing the zoom level in the browser adjusts the resolution of math images. One zoom level in works best for me. Hoogs 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1.4 General structure

Just a comment regarding the general structure of this wiki. At the moment it is pretty poor, it is difficult to find specific things and even return to them even with the search function. We need to work on managing the content some more. The problem, of course, is that its a big job so thats why its important to start early. It can be done with a "light touch" in the sense that we don't have to hatchet someone's contribution, just locate and standardise it a bit better. I started tidying up the the installation information, for example. Creating a better jump off point is a start, but we should think in terms of a better information hierarchy, and using tools like subpages where appropriate. Hoogs 01:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the structure can be better. I would suggest adding categories to the page. I will start creating categories and adding articles in them, so one can navigate through the category pages to what they want. And hi to all of you, I'm new here. CeeKay 13:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Two points brought to you by Marupio 23:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC):

  1. We need a section for explaining how it works. I've been writing articles on some of the advanced C++ used by OpenFOAM. It seems articles on how OpenFOAM works don't fit very easily into the current format. Right now I've been calling them 'snip' articles, and putting them into section 7 of the FAQ as well as into the Programmer guide addendum where other similarly orphaned articles were sitting. Marupio 23:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the way you put it into the FAQ is perfect. Don't know if it makes sense to link to them from a second page (just because this would mean additional maintenance work). What could be nice to collect this kind of stuff ("The real programming manual") could be the "Create Book" thing (but I should update that plugin one of these days)Bgschaid 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Understood. But I'll keep putting them in the Addendum unless you say otherwise. It also seems like a natural place for them. Marupio 00:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
2. If the FAQ is supposed to be the central theme to this (I read that somewhere on here...) shouldn't it have a easier link from the Main Page? Marupio 23:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
About the FAQ: You're right. It used to be in the bar on the left hand side (now that you mention it, I notice that it seems to be gone - probably during some update of the Wikisoftware, I remotly remember reading something in the release notes). Will try to reinstate it there. Apart from that it is in the center of the start-page (can't be much more prominent than that. Where would you move it?) . About the FAQ being central: that's the way it should have been, but it never became as popular as I hoped it wouldBgschaid 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I only mentioned that because I had trouble finding it the first time. I was thinking the bar on the top... but I suspect that's a macro that is hard to change. Marupio 00:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bernhard, when did you go to MediaWiki 1.15? I only just noticed with your really nice changes on the home page. Its interesting to see what features 1.15 is offering, I might upgrade my internal work wiki. I'm a huge fan of the semantic wiki concept. While we are at work making the structure more human-readable, we can now also keep machine readability in mind. Hoogs 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Marupio, just a big vote of appreciation for your coding notes, they're very much needed here, well done! This is one of the current big (huge) gaps in OF learning tools. I'm not so sure they should be hidden away in the FAQ, I'd be more inclined to see a prominent link like "The Code Explained" from the "Develop" section of the home page. What do you think Bernhard? Maybe you could consider putting together a single jump off page, if you haven't already? Hoogs 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I felt for a long time that this site could use a new logo. Does anyone else agree? Hoogs 03:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely opposed to the idea (although I already feel some nostalgia for the current logo;) ). Nevertheless I think that the logo should clearly be recognisable as OpenFOAMish while not violating (and being confused with) any existing copyrighted Logos. Feel free to post any suggestions (I know you already have one) here and we'll discuss it Bgschaid 11:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here's a start, have added gallery above. To be frank, the existing use of overlapping semi-transparent text is ugly, enough to give any graphic artist a bout of nausea and it didn't create a good first impression, at least for me. We're not graphic artists, we're technical people but it should be possible to do better Hoogs 01:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)