Michael added a comment.
In T218282#5115178 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T218282#5115178>, @lucamauri wrote: > May I suggest to work on the documentation on higher level? I would start from scratch writing down all the relevant topics in the config (like they are sections heading), choose if they belong to //Basic// or //Advanced// and then fill the content. To a newcomer like me, the documentation looks only partly coordinated and very often just a bunch of notes. Much of the text can and should be reused, but the structure can be improved, I think. Does in your opinion make sense to start such an effort? Maybe I can help as well with the notes I took along the way. Rethinking the structure of the documentation sounds reasonable. However, rewriting it from scratch would certainly be a large effort. Thus, I would suggest that we get this specific piece of information merged first, so that we can point other users with that problem to it. Also, @Lydia_Pintscher is the one that decides how to move forward with the documentation and how to prioritise it with respect to our other tasks. > > >> Yes, some introduction is a good idea. I would like to focus here more on getting the sitelinks on the Item pages to work and have a guide about Direct Access on the advanced config page or somewhere else. > > To this point I must respectfully disagree as – at least in my personal experience with Wikibase – it was not easy to grasp the relations between SL and DA at first glance. If we go on with the respective guides in two separate pages, please let's have a clear hyperlink between the two Mh, you might be right there. I added some more information about direct access to it. What do you think? >> No, `Extension:WikimediaMessages` is only needed if one wants to use the default/example settings. Apparently, I should phrase this clearer. Or maybe drop it completely, because 3rd Party installations will likely never use it. > > I would rephrase it. Can I directly contribute to the subpage in case I can think of something else? I dropped it for now. Especially, if we also talk about direct access, then it might start to get confusing. Because, even if one sets a sitelink to a Wikipedia page, one obviously could not use direct access to link back to the custom repo-wiki. Now it should be easier to follow. >> True, I mainly intended it as a verification step, as the SiteLink widget in the related box in the item's page can give for some problems no error message at all. However, you are very right as far as everyday usage is concerned. > > Now that you put like that, I see your point. In fact, using that method, maybe would have helped //me// as well at the beginning. Maybe we can instruct the user to try in the box and, if it does not work, to try again on that page for some troubleshooting. I added a second step to the verification section to have the user actively verify that direct access works. Feel free to rephrase any of it if you think of something :) TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T218282 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: Michael Cc: Ladsgroup, johl, Addshore, lucamauri, Aklapper, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Lydia_Pintscher, alaa_wmde, Nandana, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, _jensen, rosalieper, Jonas, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
