CWCki:Technical

Community Portal
Forum	News	Policy
Help	Technical	General

For discussion of errors, extensions, and technical stuff in general(yes we know about the 500 errors).

upgraded to 1.16.0

seems like all the obvious stuff is fixed but if there are any missing extensions you need please let me know --Cogsdev 02:39, 2 August 2010 (PDT)

Audio hosting

Seeing as how some of the audio recordings that we link to on some pages have been removed from their file hosting sites, I was thinking maybe instead of having people download audio we simply host it here CWCiki side. An example of what I am talking about can be found here.[1] CrassCrab 10:14, 3 August 2010 (PDT)

This could be doable, but needs server configuration. From user's point of view, it could be a simple matter of converting the files to Ogg Vorbis and uploading them here. Currently, the upload page doesn't accept .ogg files, and files are limited to 7 MB. In order to make the in-browser support work, we'd need the OggHandler extension (which needs ffmpeg and other leet stuff installed on the server as well). --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 03:12, 6 August 2010 (PDT)

Apache Module versus CGI

I've been a long time lurker, but the prevalence of 500 Internal Server Errors has prompted me to register an account. I've lurked and searched the CWCki to see if this has been suggested, but I didn't see anyone bring up this potential solution. So I apologize if I'm offering a redundant suggestion. These error messages seem to suggest to me that the Wiki software is running on CGI. A lot of CGI-related performance issues can be remedied by running PHP via an Apache module, rather than as a CGI binary. The PHP CGI binary is invoked, processes a script, and then shuts down every time a page is requested. Apache modules are continuous, thread safe processes (thread safety can be build dependent). I'm not sure if this hosting provider offers such a configuration option, but it may be worth looking into one that does if this becomes an increasingly prominent issue. FastCGI may be a worthwhile alternative to the current configuration if an Apache module is not an option because of some inherent limitations with Wiki software. Sheex 10:28, 24 August 2010 (PDT)

500 internal server error poll

Please note what page you received it on and what your action was (view/edit/etc...). Clydec 14:25, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• Main Page/View - It happens sometimes when I try going here on a new window. --EdtheHedgehog1894 18:14, 5 October 2010 (EST)

• I almost always get it when saving an edit, sometimes when I log in. Pfargtl9000 Spam & Eggs 17:10, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• Same here.--trombonista 18:08, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• That's actually been happening to me quite a bit, recently. --EdtheHedgehog1894 21:23, 5 October 2010 (EST)

Extra processing and memory is used while saving a page, and since lack of memory is the likely cause of the error - it's unsurprising that you encounter it when doing the above. Implementing global caching would help alleviate server load, as currently every page request from logged in users is generating server processing. Longer pages have more chance of generating the error - as they are larger, and take up more memory while being processed. --Anonymax 18:30, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

I'll back up the main page and saving edits. I almost never get them otherwise recently. Sometimes I get them if I try to open a page in a tab. The way I browse, I open links I want to read in tabs in tabs to where I can continue reading the page I'm on without having to come back and remember where I was. The tabs will 500 error about 25% of the time. BubblegumPinkButler 14:22, 6 October 2010 (PDT)

• Got one this morning on the Main page. I didn't do anything in particular other than trying to open it. --ErsatzHouse 12:55, 8 October 2010 (PDT)

Is the CWCki faster now?

Is it? Do you get the 500 internal server error still? Clydec 20:39, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• It's better. Though it still takes a little while to load longer pages after editing, and I've only experienced one error message while searching for some video. It's a good start, though. --EdtheHedgehog1894 00:02, 6 October 2010 (EST)

Yes it's very fast when not doing things like editing/saving pages (as to be expected). The changes made should hopefully mean fewer errors for everyone, and it seems like a much faster article-browsing experience too. --Anonymax 21:18, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

• I still get a lot of 500 Internal Server Errors. Not as many as before but it still happens a noticeable amount. It's as fast as it was before; I don't see any difference. Yossarian 13:26, 6 October 2010 (PDT)
• I've only gotten one today. Usually I get at least three.--trombonista 21:35, 9 October 2010 (PDT)
  • Okay, today I got bitchslapped by the error when trying to edit that stupid prank call page.--trombonista 21:24, 15 October 2010 (PDT)
• I only seem to get 500 errors when requesting pages which are not static (i.e. edit pages, recent changes, histories, diffs). The odd 500 error I get when browsing regular articles tends to be on ones that are subject to a lot of recent edits, such as a new video article. --Anonymax 05:52, 13 October 2010 (PDT)

Default Skin

I think we should make Vector the default skin for the CWCki, as MonoBook is pretty dated and Vector gives wikis a very clean appearance. A lot of wikis are adopting Vector for this reason. The layout differences are fairly minor, so it really shouldn't give anyone much trouble by making it the default. Users who really dislike it can still change back to MonoBook in their prefs.

• Preview Vector on the Main Page
• Preview Vector on this page

Your thoughts please! --Anonymax 20:11, 19 November 2010 (PST)

Personally I find Monobook more simplistic and nice, as well as more familiar. But we'll see. -- Mexican 21:03, 19 November 2010 (PST)

Vector is clunky and confusing. I prefer Monobook. --BreadGod 21:38, 19 November 2010 (PST)

Monobook is only used by autistics. Vector should be the new default skin.--Inos 22:09, 19 November 2010 (PST)

Vector's kinda pretty! --NerdyNautilus 10:36, 19 November, 2010 (PST)

I could defend either one but they're both shitty white default skins so I honestly don't give a damn. If I had to choose I'd say the one we have now is fine, there's no reason to change it for the sake of changing it. That's how Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts raped my childhood. Fuckfuck fuck that noise. I forgot vector moves the searchbar to the top, and it was confusing as fuck when Wikipedia did it. Vector can eat a dick.--Thorgnzorrg 23:45, 19 November 2010 (PST)

The search box movement is about the only major layout change in Vector. There's a reason why Wikipedia changed the default to Vector - it's nicer. --Anonymax 06:34, 20 November 2010 (PST)

Vector is made of AIDS. Monobook works just fine. --Reimu H 05:40, 20 November 2010 (PST)

I don't see how Vector is made of AIDS. Just because something works is not a reason to not consider changing it. While some people clearly prefer MonoBook because it's been the default for so long, I was hoping that people would see that it does give a cleaner appearance to the CWCki and that from the average reader's perspective - it can be more aesthetically pleasing. The design of Vector is more fluid than MonoBook, with less grey and more light colours. The removal of the grey book background is one noticeable change that definitely lightens up articles. With Wikipedia and several other major wikis already using Vector, it should make the CWCki feel more familiar for the average reader. --Anonymax 06:34, 20 November 2010 (PST)

I don't know, it feels like Vector is just using cheap gradient tricks and light blue colors to seem nicer, but really it's actually making everything bigger and less streamlined. I tink the only people who are really going to come to CWCki are nerds of course, and they probably more appreciate the monobook look. -- Mexican 08:36, 20 November 2010 (PST)

Use of gradients is fairly minor, and is done because the skin is not meant to be very heavy. It doesn't really make things bigger - the default size for menu links is indeed larger than MonoBook, but it adds to the clean and clear factor of Vector. The sidebar is about the same width. Vector seems very streamlined to me. I disagree with both the claim that the majority of our visitors are nerds and the claim that they will appreciate monobook more. If they're familiar with Wikipedia, they'd be more likely to appreciate Vector. --Anonymax 08:50, 20 November 2010 (PST)

I say we keep Monobook, the movement of the search bar is the big problem with Vector. At least we're not using Oasis, which is Wikia's new skin. Pfargtl9000 Spam & Eggs 07:14, 20 November 2010 (PST)

There are a number of issues I have with Vector. First of all, raising the search bar makes it so that I have to scroll to the top of even small articles to search, which is a minor irritant, but an irritant nonetheless. Secondly, the breaking up of the "Page/Discussion" and "Edit/View History" makes it more difficult to quickly navigate an article (I use a trackpad, so moving across the screen is not really something I like to do). Thirdly, the "Watch" button is hidden in the little menu next to "View History" - and it's the only thing there. That just bothers me, and besides, when I want to watch a page, I'd like to only have to click once. I suppose the only other two changes that I can see that matter are that 1) the bottom bar is now different (to which I am indifferent, as I never use that bar anyway) and 2) the Donation ad appears to be gone, although that might be easily corrected (and again, I am indifferent). I honestly think what we have appears more professional (looks like a portfolio to me) and is more compact (because it is). To me, Vector/Monobook is like Mac/Windows. Protip: Windows is better. Freecell 07:33, 20 November 2010 (PST)

You know that the little dropdown next to View history should be on-hover and not on-click, so it should still only be one click. The dropdown contains more options if you're an admin. I rarely use the watched pages feature though - so I guess I've never really been worried about where the link is for it. --Anonymax 07:37, 20 November 2010 (PST)

Thing is this isn't a professional & widely-used wiki like Wikipedia. It's a wiki dedicated to doccumenting the trolling of a fat retard from Virginia. Besides, you said we'd be able to change it back to Monobook if the default layout was changed right? Why can't there just be an alternative option to change the layout to Vector for those who want it instead of changing the default layout to Vector? --Thorgnzorrg 07:59, 20 November 2010 (PST)

You can manually configure Vector to be your default skin already. The idea of setting Vector to be our default skin would be to make the CWCki nicer to the majority of users who simply come here as readers, who may not have accounts, and who may be unaware of the fact wikis allow you to change your skin. The vast majority of visitors to CWCki are readers, and I think it would be nicer for them to experience CWCki with Vector. I don't think the subject of this wiki makes either skin a better or worse choice. --Anonymax 08:50, 20 November 2010 (PST)

/shrug. Set up a vote on the Main Page then. --Thorgnzorrg 09:04, 20 November 2010 (PST)

Meh. Personally, I hate Vector, but it'll make the wiki look more pro. Anyone as particular as me about it can just change it ourselves. Enibure 09:34, 20 November 2010 (PST)

I feel that Vector has a "food court" aesthetic that I don't like, plus everybody is used to Monobook already. I support the "keep Monobook, but let people change to vector if they want" motion. Is there a problem with Monobook, or is it just a matter of keeping up with the Joneses? -GrotchManchowder 12:36 PM, 20 November 2010 (EST)

I support the "vote on the Main Page" idea. If you're worried that staying like this will be worse for the average, account-free Joe, just make it say something like "Hey anon faggot come vote here" or some shit. Freecell 09:53, 20 November 2010 (PST)

I don't like how Vector has the search bar at the top right. It's a lot more convenient when it's near the navigation and toolbox windows. Mr3urious 10:11, 20 November 2010 (PST)

Then again, I am getting used to Wikipedia's layout. Mr3urious 10:13, 20 November 2010 (PST)

Everything but not what the Wikipedia is using right now. I hate it even more that these huge-ass "personal appeals" from Jimbo begging for my money that I keep clicking on accidentally. --Sonijew is back 10:22, 20 November 2010 (PST)

I don't really have a preference. Vector has a nice professional feeling to it (but then, none of us are professionals, just bored trolls following the misadventures of an overweight manchild... but that's off-topic), but Monobook has more nostalgic appeal to me. Whatever's best. N. Onymous 10:58, 20 November 2010 (PST)

I vote for vector! PeachyKeen 11:17, 20 November 2010 (PST)

Both are equally good. OrsonZedd 11:54, 20 November 2010 (PST)

Vector is awesome, and I use it in every wiki that supports it, mostly because you don't really need to look for the search box (in some MonoBook sites, its location kind of depends on what the admins have been drinking over the past week). But I don't know if I have any preference either way as to whether it should be made default. People who are logged out can't edit the wiki and people who are logged in can change the preference, so it's hard to start weighing the usability and the skins don't really affect the way the articles look like. No harm going either way. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 11:58, 20 November 2010 (PST)