Use of Level 1 section headings
I just had a first stab at some editing an existing entry, and creating a new one. One small thing I noticed: all of the pages I've seen use Level 1 headings for the main sections, but this is discouraged by the MediaWiki documentation (esp. since Level 1 is already used for the main heading of each entry). See e.g. here:
So maybe it would be better to change those to level 2 (also in all cases I've seen the child sections use level 3 headings)? Not a big deal of course but it's a bit ugly and it's probably easier to fix this now than postponing it to a later stage (also existing entries will most likely be used as a template for creating new ones, so the problem will get progressively worse if left as it is). I suppose this is also something that might mess up attempts at automated text extraction. johanvanderknijff (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Good point - I didn't know about this recommendation. It should be possible to automated this transformation using the Pywikibot framework and the mwparserfromhell. We could change the tool template now and use a bot to modify the rest? Andy Jackson (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 Purpose field in infobox
Another thing I noticed is that for most entries the purpose field in the infobox more or less repeats what's already in the Description section. So maybe it's better to leave it out altogether (on the other hand it might be useful for automated discovery/analysis)? johanvanderknijff (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- The intention was the other way around - that the 'purpose' field was a brief description that might be published and re-used in other forms (due to being in the infobox), and the Description section should be more detailed. Andy Jackson (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I thought as well. For some existing entries both are identical though, so it wasn't immediately clear. johanvanderknijff (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 Perhaps rename Imaging category to Disk Imaging?
- Good idea. Unfortunately, I think that due to the way MediaWiki works, this means editing all the items tagged with that category (unless there's a trick I'm unaware of). However, perhaps I should tweak COPTR Bot to do this too. Andy Jackson (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 Problems with login procedure (VeriSign)
Having created an OpenID with Verisign, signing in to COPTR is a bit hit and miss. It always takes multiple attempts before I can successfully log in, and I first have to work myself through multiple authorization errors. Not clear to me whether the error is caused by COPTR or VeriSign, and results seem to be a bit random. Also after some time of inactivity I seem to get logged out automatically. Confusingly, the COPTR login status at the top right then shows I'm still logged in (depending on which page I'm on, it seems), and I have to go through the whole login procedure (including failures) again. johanvanderknijff (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- This StackOverflow answer outlines some of the possible causes of problems with OpenID logins. I guess we could perhaps enable non-OpenID logins, although I wanted to avoid that for fear of making it even easier for the robots/spammers. Using Google as an OpenID provider is working fine for me. Andy Jackson (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm ... the StackOverflow page links to an OpenID checker, but I'm a bit scared of it because it exposes all the info you enter there to a publicly viewable log ... Not keen on using Google either, because they're, well ... Google. The main point of course is that the success of COPTR will depend completely on community involvement, and if the login procedure is already such a stumbling block that's not going to help there. Also the procedure to get the OpenID isn't terribly straightforward, and this will scare off potential contributors as well. So I would consider adding a non-OpenID login procedure, perhaps augmented with a CAPTCHA to keep the robots at bay (e.g. like the Archiveteam Formats Wiki). johanvanderknijff (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I've enabled plain logins and registration. To make sure you retain the same user account, you should ensure it knows the right email address so you can use password recovery to login. Alternatively, I think you should be able to reset your PW from your Preferences page. The current setup is that you should see CAPTCHAs blocking all edits etc. unless you have confirmed your email address. We'll see how it goes, and if we have to tighten up things to avoid spam, so be it. Andy Jackson (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for the quick response! Apparently there's no way to set a pw from the Preferences page once you have an existing OpenID assigned to your user profile, and when I try to delete my OpenID I get an error that this isn't possible because no password is set, classic Catch 22 there! Anyway, I'll stick with the OpenID madness for a bit and if I get really fed up with it I may well just create a new COPTR account, probably the easiest solution all around. johanvanderknijff (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 changing Open Planets Foundation to Open Preservation Foundation
Hi. The Main Page need some update (changing Open Planets Foundation to Open Preservation Foundation). I have of course not the permission to do that :-) . Thanks. Chlara (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good call, this is now fixed. Thanks!
 DSPS (Digital Preservation Software Platform) is the same as Digital Preservation Software Platform
Hi. I have updated the Digital Preservation Software Platform. After that I saw that there is a nearly same Page DSPS (Digital Preservation Software Platform). Due to the fact, that "DSPS (Digital Preservation Software Platform)" is the better title I have copied the content from Digital Preservation Software Platform into DSPS (Digital Preservation Software Platform). In the Page Digital Preservation Software Platform I replaced the content with a link to DSPS (Digital Preservation Software Platform).
Can you please delete the page Digital Preservation Software Platform.
 Merging duplicate entries
I noticed that there are two entries for the CONTENTdm digital asset management system:
I removed the limited content from the ContentDM page and made it redirect to the CONTENTdm page, using the MediaWiki #redirect option (see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Redirects. Should this be the recommended practice or would you rather simply delete one of the pages? If the latter, how to we request removal of a page?