Talk:UseModWiki/Archive 1

Untitled
Which is the nowadays wikipedia wikisoftware ??.
 * Currently that would be MediaWiki 1.4. You can go to Special:Version to find out at any time. --the wub (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if this is a bit off-topic, but how were the pages converted from UseMod to WikiMedia? --Bubba


 * Hi Bubba. See the MediaWiki FAQ, especially Lots of love, Ferkel 00:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

---

"Usemod" <=> "UseModWiki"?
An Utter Newbie question here: Can somebody please clarify whether there is any distinction between the terms "Usemod" and "UseModWiki"? (Usemod redirects to UseModWiki)

Cf. the Ruby FAQ, "The RubyGarden wiki is based on Usemod." 

- 27 december 2005
 * Usemod is often used as a shorthand form of UseModWiki. DenisMoskowitz 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

UseModWiki seems to refer to both UseMod wiki software and also the wiki for the softare.

---

Screenshot
Perhaps a picture of Wikipedia when it used UseModWiki would be good.... The web archive can help us with this. Wikipedia on October 10th 2001 (running UseModWiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.153.49 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a UseModWiki Screenshot showing what can be done using CSS: http://www.imbe.net/images/bizen-wiki-screenshot.jpg The image is public domain (It's my website). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.42.220 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

move to projectspace
This certainly is an encyclopaedia article, contradicting the move summary. The point about lack of sources is valid, but is a reason for either adding said sources (there seem to be some listed in the old deletion discussion linked above, plus I found with a little effort) or to list the article at the Articles for Deletion area. I completely do not understand why in any situation it was moved to project space; the software may have been used for Wikipedia once, but there are no gratituous self-references in the article. I'm moving it back, please first engage in discussion on the subject to clarify your intent if you really feel it belongs in projectspace. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  ?  14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved it to project space because, while the UseModWiki engine is historically important to Wikipedia, this page does not meet the standards we expect of encyclopedia articles (which are much higher now than they were a couple of years ago when this page was created). The most serious problem is that the article does not cite any reliable sources, or, in fact, any sources at all. If this page is going to be kept in article space, it should be referenced to non-trivial, reliable third-party sources, as required by WP:V. If that can't be done because of a lack of such sources, then it should be moved back to project space, which I think is preferable to deletion. *** Crotalus *** 15:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where you were coming from on that. I'm going to add Introducing UseModWiki and Which Open Source Wiki Works For You? to the article for now; that's one dedicated article in linux.com (software.newsforge.com at the time) and one acknowledgement from ONLamp as a "popular Wiki implementation".  If you feel it needs more sources and we can't get any, let's list it at WP:AFD with "move to projectspace" mentioned as a possibility in the nomination.
 * the UseModWiki engine is historically important to Wikipedia - so it merits a paragraph or so in a larger article in projectspace. Most of the article is about post-2002 stuff, when Wikipedia was no longer using the engine. As far as the larger issue, the subject seems notable to me - UseModWiki is probably the most popular wiki software (in terms of number of wikis rather than total number of edits) . I'd rather just put up an "unsourced" template and let it be. I've learned that just because no one can come up with anything resembling a good source doesn't mean that the community agrees that an article should be deleted. -- John Broughton (??) 16:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't get the impression that it currently is the "most popular". That's probably something else we should look at for improving the article (whatever namespace it ends up in). -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   ⊖  16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

sofixit. I'm pretty sure UseMod is decently notable ;-) That and this kind of stuff is what forces me to check if an article on something still exists on wikipedia for something every time I need to make a link. Gone are the days where I could just be blase and tell people "It's on $randomthing, duh!". It's much worse than vandalism. With vandalism you can just revert it back one step, and you're done. With deletion or moves like this, information that was once there, is there no longer. It's just not cool. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, deletion can be reverted too, just not by anyone. The real solution to a perceived excess of deletion is to hunt down and repair articles with sourcing problems, that's what I do! :-D  Hopefully Crotalus is satisfied with what we've got in here at the minute, if not we can have another look. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   ⊖  18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It just sort of hurts my eventualist sensibilities. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)