Archive:Weekly Wiki
What's the Weekly Wiki?
It's an informal meeting/workshop/get-together, in which we can (once a week) expect to be able to interact with other Citizens in something closer to real-time. So you can announce your new articles; request help with articles; ask questions about policy or the software; introduce proposals; generally chat; etc.
When?
Wednesdays when there's no Write-a-Thon, at:
- Wednesday UTC 0900 (= 7 PM Sydney)
- Wednesday UTC 1800 (= 7 PM London, 8 PM Paris)
- Thursday UTC 0100 (= Wednesday 6 PM California, 9 PM New York)
We'll say that the Weekly Wiki happens for two hours beginning at each of those times, but anytime Wednesday, you can write on the Weekly Wiki page.
August 22 Weekly Wiki
- So...are we doing this again this week? --Carl Jantzen 09:41, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- Sure why not? :-) Anton Sweeney 09:43, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- I'll try to show up, but I just got back from a trip from halfway around the world, with wife and baby. Recovering (and reading mail) will take time! --Larry Sanger 09:59, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- Meh, its not like I have a real life :-P Denis Cavanagh 10:00, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Subpages
I'm wondering if User:Chris Day could maybe give us a quick update on where the Subpages project is at and what we can expect/will need to do once it goes live? Anton Sweeney 09:45, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- I'm not Chris Day, but I did get an email pointing me to this page today, maybe that information is helpful. --Carl Jantzen 09:47, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- It is important that everyone contributes to that poll (CZ:Subpages/Which_style?). There are intruction on how to use the subpages on both the vertical and horizontal templates. See {{subpages2}} (vertical) and {{subpages9}} (horizontal). It is still in the testing phase. I have tried to help people set up the subpages correctly when i see the edits but have not started any sort of mass addition of subpages except for testing puposes. There is still one issues to resolve; where do we place the metadata page? It is a technical issue vs an aesthetic issue. It is technically easier to have it on a template (i.e. Template:ARTICLENAME/Metadata), but more intuitive to have it on as a subpage (ARTICLENAME/Metadata). So bear in mind any use of subpages templates now may involve tweeking at a later date. Finally, which ever style is chosen as the favored one will be transfered to the {{subpages}}, so neither 2 or 9 will be the final template. Again more tweeks will be required in the future if either is used now. Having said this, I think it is good for people to experiment with the subpages since the more feedback we get now the more user friendly the final product will be. The real final word is that if, when the subpages temaplate is given the real green light, a bot will place the subpages template on all pages in main space. That transition will be very intense since we will have to transfer all the checklists to the metadata page manually (another reason why we need to intentify the real home for this critical page before we start doing this enmasse. Chris Day (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- By the way, if anyone is interested in the technical side of the metadata page location I have outlined the details here; Test_article/Signed_Articles. Note i have also offered a partial solution to the problem that would allow the metadata page to reside in a subpages rather than a temaplate. It's not perfect but it works. Chris Day (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- It is important that everyone contributes to that poll (CZ:Subpages/Which_style?). There are intruction on how to use the subpages on both the vertical and horizontal templates. See {{subpages2}} (vertical) and {{subpages9}} (horizontal). It is still in the testing phase. I have tried to help people set up the subpages correctly when i see the edits but have not started any sort of mass addition of subpages except for testing puposes. There is still one issues to resolve; where do we place the metadata page? It is a technical issue vs an aesthetic issue. It is technically easier to have it on a template (i.e. Template:ARTICLENAME/Metadata), but more intuitive to have it on as a subpage (ARTICLENAME/Metadata). So bear in mind any use of subpages templates now may involve tweeking at a later date. Finally, which ever style is chosen as the favored one will be transfered to the {{subpages}}, so neither 2 or 9 will be the final template. Again more tweeks will be required in the future if either is used now. Having said this, I think it is good for people to experiment with the subpages since the more feedback we get now the more user friendly the final product will be. The real final word is that if, when the subpages temaplate is given the real green light, a bot will place the subpages template on all pages in main space. That transition will be very intense since we will have to transfer all the checklists to the metadata page manually (another reason why we need to intentify the real home for this critical page before we start doing this enmasse. Chris Day (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Article Metadata and Definition
Here is a simple question: Why don't we have a topic's definition on the Metadata subpage instead of its own template page? It would be nicer to have all that info in the same place, and I think it makes sense to keep actual content in the main namespace rather than the template namespace. -- Carl Jantzen 09:46, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Because it's easier to build out Related Articles pages this way. What we need, clearly, are ways to edit particular hard-wired fields within a page. On the other hand, it's too early in the game to hard-wire our fields. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Related Articles
I'm about to start compiling a list of Related Articles for the article on Nathanael Greene (American Revolution General), but I'm not really sure what the proper "parent topic" would be. I was thinking either American Revolutionary War, or maybe even just military. Suggestions welcome. --Todd Coles 10:03, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- American Revolutionary War sounds pretty good. --Carl Jantzen 10:04, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- Agreed - I think just 'Military' is too broad. Anton Sweeney 10:13, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- I agree as well. See CZ:Related Articles for helpful hints. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Subpage Style Voting
I guess the assumption of subpages is that we have to standardize on just one type of navigation aid. Personally I think that maybe (at least for now) we should allow principal authors to choose which type of navigation to use for their articles, but since there is already a vote going on you might as well cast yours here: CZ:Subpages/Which style? Carl Jantzen 10:10, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
No, let's definitely prescribe one set style--even if it's one that you and I, Carl, dislike as benighted, messy, bad design, etc. The question actually allows me to say annoyingly once again that this project is created not to indulge the idiosyncratic choices of our contributors, but to aid the end user in finding reliable information as efficiently as possible. --Larry Sanger 10:19, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- Given the way the poll is going i wonder if people understand your full reasoning behind the vertical version being superior to the horizontal for navigation. While the voting is still in progress I wonder if such a discussion should be started at CZ_Talk:Subpages/Which_style?. We have a lot of votes but no real debate. i suspect votes are going with aesthetics over function? Who knows for sure. Chris Day (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, the reasoning is stated clearly enough, just very briefly, in the summary. If people aren't impressed by the reasoning, that's all right. In the long run, we'll redesign the whole thing anyway. Most important in cases like this is that it be clear that I am not simply personally legislating how things must be. It's very healthy, even necessary, for the leader to be overruled from time to time. --Larry Sanger 10:44, 22 August 2007 (CDT)