Festipedia talk:Community

Add topic
From Festipedia, hosted by the FR Heritage Group
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Eheaps in topic Thanks

Picture Sizing[edit]

In order that you picture appears without some of it scrolling off to the right, it is suggested you limit the picture size to 755px. I.E. if you pix is large then use this format
[[Image:Test.jpg||750PX|]] to ensure its all on screen

Modify all image links[edit]

to use the new syntax. They have been automatically updated to use [[Image:filename]] tags but with no parameters (apart from those for which parameters were already specified). Most should be set to thumbnails with the caption added to the Image tag.

Fix broken links[edit]

(see Special:Whatlinkshere) As of this date is totally clear --Keith 13:32, 9 October 2007

Consider changing the "User Friendly Index" to categories[edit]

This will be a large change, as it affects some 900+ pages at the moment!!! See Talk:A_User_Friendly_Index for further discussion Keith 20:32, 1 March 2007 AUFI is now being removed as a separate line from all file, as is now in the navigaton bar --Keith (talk) 2008-1-24T09:10:43

Categorise all existing pages[edit]

Large on going project!!

Insert appropriate image copyright tags[edit]

for all existing images - Large on going project!!

Update all tables[edit]

to use the new syntax

Large on going project!! - old table style works with some problems - new tables better

Add more redirect pages[edit]

to make it easier for misspelt/miscapitalised links to end up at the right target as required

Move existing pages[edit]

to new titles where appropriate, particularly where the new software allows the page title to be correctly capitalised

As with Tan y Bwlch, Hafod y Llyn - underway

Produce some templates to tag pages for speedy deletion[edit]

or to start a discussion on whether or not the page should be deleted

Category:Candidates for fast deletion - This category contains pages tagged with fast deletion templates. Before fast deleting a page, take the time to ensure that it meets the criteria for deletion, check the links, the history and for images the file links. If there is any doubt at all, switch the article to the proposed deletion process that allows time for others to review the proposal.

Category:Contested candidates for fast deletion - This is a subset of Category:Candidates for fast deletion, consisting solely of those pages on which :{{hangon}} has been inserted in response to the page being listed for fast deletion. The purpose of this page is not to fundamentally change the fast deletion process, but simply to help prevent a situation where a page is deleted while someone is in the middle of writing an explanation of why they believe this action should not be taken.

Category:Deletion proposed - This category contains articles which have been proposed for deletion. To tag an article for proposed deletion use: :{{subst:deletion proposed| reason for deletion}}

Previously used

Category:Deletion Required - when placing this on a file for definite deletion, please go in and add at the very top the reason for deletion (since you have to edit file to insert the category!!). This ooption should only be used for files that may have been created in error, or are duplicate of an existing file. Final call on this is down to the administrators

NB. These actions do not actually delete the file. File deletion is under the exclsive control of the administrators. --Keith 22:22, 30 June 2007 Amended --Keith (talk) 2008-1-24T09:06:05

Produce any other useful templates[edit]


Cite references[edit]

on existing pages


Rework the Help pages[edit]

They were written by the developer who is, perhaps, a little too close to the software (and has spent too much time reading Wikipedia's help). It would also be good to update the examples, some of which are borrowed frome Wikipedia help. ongoing

Add anything missing to the help pages[edit]


Remove any usage of deprecated functionality[edit]

(apart from tables and images, this primarily means the existing anchors)


Move existing user pages[edit]

to the User namespace (something can be left in the main namespace if the individual is notable, but ideally this should not be self-written) Completed

Move all test pages to the Wiki or User namespace[edit]

The former pages named Test Test xxxx have now all been moved to the Wiki area, and are now accessed as Wiki:Test Test, Wiki:Test Two, Wiki:Test Three etc.

To find them search on Wiki:Test - deletion of originals requested


As user pages and test pages are moved[edit]

flag the page in the main namespace for deletion


Produce some lightweight policies and procedures[edit]


Write a style guide[edit]


Community Page Minder[edit]

Find someone to look after the community portal! Any offers?

Keith 11:51, 2 March 2007

Using talk pages[edit]

Please sign your posts using --~~~~.

Also, please use sections, NOT lines, to break up the page. Sections make it easy for people to find their way around the page.

Thank you.

--Peter_Harrison 11:20, 2 March 2007

Invent time travel[edit]

I think you have your months out of step. I presume you update to the Wiki software was the 29th JUNE 2007?

--Edward Harris 10:49, 2 July 2007

Oops! I've fixed that now. --Peter_Harrison 13:35, 2 July 2007

Spam accounts[edit]

We really must do something about this, guys. Every single day new users are added, few (if any) of which are genuine. The list of users now shows that well over 95% of all users are simply spam accounts, and to me this Wiki is now sadly losing credibility. There must be something we can do about this. Tony E. (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been deleting them as soon as I can but I do agree that this is become a big nuisance. I know it goes against Peter's ideas but I feel that access to edit should be restricted to registered uses and that to be registered requires approval. Unless we restrict access I can see someone devising a program which will just swamp the whole wiki. Heritagejim (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are no easy answers. It looks like these attacks may be automated. The Captcha on account creation is supposed to stop that but I think automated bots are now able to decode the images. A lot of attempted spam is caught by the abuse filter and I am working on a filter that will catch many of those that currently get through. Not sure why Tony thinks we are losing credibility, though. Successful attacks on existing content pages are extremely rare. --Peter Harrison (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re. credibility, it's just a personal feeling. Most days I log on to the "recent changes" to see what's been happening, and I find it disheartening. Yesterday over 20 spam users registered. Today some 15 have done, and it's not even 8 o'clock in the morning. It just leaves me disinclined to want to contribute to the degree I used to. Tony E. (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand what you are saying Tony. Unfortunately I don't think there is anything I can do to stop the accounts being created. I am working on stopping them from actually doing anything harmful. Quite a lot is blocked by the abuse filter already but I'm looking to imrpove it .--Peter Harrison (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added some new anti-spam measures. I doubt they will completely stop spam accounts or spam pages being created but hopefully they will reduce the amount we are getting. --Peter Harrison (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories (June 2015)[edit]

I have made a start on a comprehensive category system from the fragments I found. Don’t know if anyone here felt a need for it, but chances are that once in a while a reader from outside might find it convenient. (As long as it’s maintained, that is. The neglect in that respect was what fuelled me…)

Of course much more could be done, maintenance and personal priorities apart. (And those articles I didn't find apart.)

For example, in line with what’s outlined here [1], a number of cross-FR/WHR (etc.) categories could be subdivided for each company (etc.); rolling stock categories could be subdivided for items hired or borrowed, historic discarded, historic still here, modern likewise; etcetera. /IP (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think (almost?) all the articles not about persons (and not behind-the-scene technical) have a category now. Or more, since many subjects are relevant in more than one context. The many short notices about persons are best gone through by someone who knows the region and its people.
Among the uncategorised articles, I have come across some duplicates, either discarded and forgotten or started by someone who didn't know there was an article on the subject. I've also found (and marked, at least when I've remembered it) a number of unmarked stubs, some on rather central subjects.
Both of which may go to show the importance of maintaining the structure of a wiki. (To whomever might be interested.) /IP (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks to Peter for the updates to the arguments module. My NavBox test now appears as I expected it to. Hopefully I'll get some full versions sorted out for various sections of the wiki. Eheaps (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]