Timeline for PHP Errors Reference question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Migration of MSO links to MSE links | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 17:57 | comment | added | toxalot | I wish I could upvote. I've been frustrated by the abundance of Notice: undefined index errors. There is a question that some get closed against, but IMO it isn't nearly as clean and well organized as the PHP Errors Reference. And I find that the 'Possible Duplicate' links can sometimes lead one around in circles. It would be nice to have one 'authoritative' set of answers for these types of questions. FYI, I didn't know about tag wikis until just now. They should at least be mentioned in the FAQ. | |
| Oct 25, 2012 at 23:53 | comment | added | Pekka | This answer serves a medal. | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 2:31 | comment | added | Earlz | That sounds like a good idea.. It'd be nice to close as a "portion" of the tag wiki. Like closing against /tagwiki/#myquestion or something so it'd immediately obvious what portion of the wiki is relevant | |
| Oct 10, 2012 at 0:41 | comment | added | user50049 | Thinking about it, perhaps the best way to make tag wikis more visible is to find some way to close extremely basic questions against them, provided they contain the appropriate canonical answer to the question. | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 23:10 | comment | added | user50049 | I think the solution here is to overhaul the tag wiki system and make it possible to close a basic question as being covered by the material it contains. We may in fact need to be able to associate questions with the wiki, and surely find a way to make it more visible. It's not just PHP - If you follow the C tag, you know when a semester starts somewhere by an influx in basic pointer arithmetic questions. It's not bad to have some duplication, but there comes a point where absurdity is reached. | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 13:29 | comment | added | Earlz | +1 I'm going to mark this as the answer. I completely agree. This question shouldn't be appropriate, but we DO need something different in the long run for keeping reference things like this. | |
| Oct 9, 2012 at 13:27 | vote | accept | Earlz | ||
| Oct 9, 2012 at 0:35 | history | answered | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |