Ok so it's just a blog, but it sure got there fast...
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33181

BFaux;-)

Not a shill, I just play one on CDP...

Hi
It looked good but I dived into indexing and bingo error messages - albeit
nicely handled - this item does not exist!
Peter McMurray
"B Faux" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote

Peter:

What are you referring to :

a. I dived into indexing and bingo error messages

b. this item does not exist!

Henry Keultjes

Peter McMurray wrote:

<hbkeultjes (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote


I don't know what is going on with this link. When I used it last week it
came up two different ways, but it was the same link. I can't say why, it
is not my site. Sorry if it doesn't work for you.

BFaux ;-)

Hi Henry
Apparently I was too cryptic for you
QM Commands<enter>
Create Index<enter>
Alternate Key Indices<enter>
Selectleft<enter>
This Item does not exist.

Unfortunately when the first thing one looks up has broken links it devalues
what does appear to have the makings of a good package.
Regards
Peter McMurray

<hbkeultjes (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

It's actually not broken. It's a placeholder.

This is customary in Wiki, so people can leave
placeholders for topics that deserve a link but
just may not be there yet.

If you had looked closely at the "broken" item,
you would have noticed that it is a reference to
a topic which will be there when and if we ever
add the BASIC section to the Wiki.

There are probably on the order of a few hundred
placeholder references from the initial three QM
chapters to various BASIC topics.

It's actually easier to leave the placeholders there
than retrofit them later. We have a report that shows
"orphans" so we can see a big picture view of what
needs doing.

I will cite Wikipedia as my example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick_operating_system

All the red links - and there are lots - are empty
topics waiting to be filled in. The blue ones are there.

We're looking into color-coding like Wikipedia to
avoid this false assumption in the future.

Jon Sisk
Chief Editor, NuWiki.com

Excalibur wrote:

Hi
Thanks Jon. It just shows how easy it is for people to get the wrong
impression. How easy/difficult is it to hide placeholders altogether.
Peter McMurray
"Jon Sisk" <jes (AT) jes (DOT) com> wrote

Peter McMurray wrote:

Since placeholders can and often do contain contextual content,
I'm not exactly sure you would want to. I'm guessing Wikipedia
set the standard for the red/blue trick, but I have seen this same
technique employed in a wide variety of Wikis.

In the meantime, I have created a new landing page for the
placeholder jumpoffs so they don't just get a harsh "Item does
not exist" message and instead get pointed to the topic I created
called '"Missing" Items in NuWiki' which pretty much reiterates
what I said earlier in this thread about placeholders.

Jon Sisk
Chief Editor, NuWiki.com