Why was the link the to Z-XML Sword Converter removed?
http://www.bibleworkplace.de/content/view/1/4/ --22.214.171.124 05:00, 24 June 2007 (MDT)
I wondered why many other changes were reverted also. Some of them did enhance the quality of the FAQ.
I understand that we have to keep the FAQ as Frequently Asked Questions. It should not be Questions Which Someone Has Asked Once or Never Asked Questions Which Someone Wants To Answer Here. There are already some questions/answers there which are not very frequent. It makes the page more difficult to use for end users. All really Frequently asked questions are there.
From now on, if someone wants to add/remove a question, I suggest that we discuss it here in this talk page.
Questions about Z-XML converter are not frequent. If it's included it could be inserted under general converter section (question about e-sword should be changed to be more general).
-- Eeli Kaikkonen
I don't remember seeing the Z-XML converter myself, but I would probably have removed it if I had. I apologize that I can't fully elaborate since I don't recall my particular objections to the Z-XML converter, but I didn't consider it something we ought to recommend that users use. (One way or another, it is NOT reasonable to consider it an End-User tool, and the FAQ, being for End-Users, is not an appropriate place to link to it.) I'll elaborate on my reservations if I get a chance to take another look at the program. In any case, we have a Zefania to OSIS converter that (IMNSHO) does a better job even though it's still a work in progress (but what isn't).
Some of the stuff I added was reverted and some removed. As a community process, I expect that some of that will happen. However, I didn't like that they were anonymously made. I suggest that we make our changes while logged in and add a brief comment to each edit.
Where is the Zefania to OSIS converter? --126.96.36.199 12:33, 25 June 2007 (MDT)
The recent OSIS converters I wrote are sitting here. I'm still going to hold off on any major announcement for a couple of reasons: First, they still need a little work. Second, I don't want people flooding me with modules they created with these converters since I've already got everything I would consider posting converted (whether or not I've actually gotten it online yet).
Reverting some other's changes may possibly happen if someone copies the text, edits it and later commits it without checking first. We just have to be careful.
Some wiki FAQs are meant to be edited by end users. That can confuse some users so that they add their questions here though the purpose is that the developers gather the proper questions. This whole thing would be much easier if we just required logging in. I don't see any reason why anonymous editing would be important. Well, I'm not logged in either... --Eeli
I put back in my changes. I'll also see if mediawiki allows us to have some pages require login. I don't know if that is something that we want to do. This page should be our "official" answers to "frequent" questions, not a place to ask questions.
I just removed a question placed in the FAQ about why the Swahili Bible doesn't contain the book of Philippians. (I don't happen to know the answer, but I'll check into it.) Anyway, we should probably such module-specific questions out of the FAQ, even if it means creating another FAQ-type page for those questions. I know there are some questions currently address specific modules, but that's a fault in the questions themselves, which happen to address general issues by naming specific modules.
It might be good to have a question "How do I report a problem with a module". I think the right answer it to point them to Jira and file a bug under Modules. But that requires membership. Chris, if you don't mind, I'll leave this up to you, since you are the Module "Pumpkin Holder".
As to the naming of specific modules, I agree that the questions should be more general. It might be reasonable to list specific ones in the answer if they are a frequent subject of the question.