Jump to content

Talk:UseModWiki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiny plastic Grey Knight (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 23 January 2008 (move to projectspace: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2/8/2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Which is the nowadays wikipedia wikisoftware ??.

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 [1] Lots of love, Ferkel 00:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"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." [2]

- 27 december 2005

Usemod is often used as a shorthand form of UseModWiki. DenisMoskowitz 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] 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)[reply]