Talk:TourBusStop

The idea of the wiki bus was created by JohnDeBruyn, the originator of the SandBox, in July 2001 and was revived in July 2002 by HelmutLeitner with help from MarkDilley and others. We thought it was a good idea to help newbies understand wikis and to help build community.

---

I don't think this page needs to be in the meta section of WikiIndex because TourBusStop is akin to WikiNode, SandBox and related to FrontPage, MainPage and distant to RecentChanges.

Ted, why do you think this page belongs in the WikiIndex namespace? MarkDilley

As I've written elsewhere, can't remember where, WikiNode, SandBox and TourBusStop in the main space should be about those concepts throughout Wikilandia. The paragraph at the top of this talk page would be perfect to be on the main namespace TourBusStop page. TedErnst | talk 23:34, 3 Apr 2006 (EDT)

Sure the paragraphy could go on the front page somewhere, or it could stay at the top of the discussion page. I like it either place. Sorry to either a) missed what you wrote elsewhere or b) have forgotten it or c) didn't understand it as such. Here are my thoughts: I think that those pages should operate like they do on other wiki. Those concepts can be talked about in a different section on the page or on the discussion page or linked back to the original idea for the concepts in Wikilandia, similar to what WikiNode and TourBusStop have "built-in". MarkDilley

This now doesn't match how other media-wiki wikis work. I really think the fact that we're producing a reference material is important, and means mediawiki was a good choice. The main article space, for me, is just the pages that would be printed in a book, were we to print out our reference material. Our wiki-node wouldn't fit in a printed reference material, but the wiki-nodes-network would fit very well. TedErnst | talk 14:44, 4 Apr 2006 (EDT)

"We are producing a reference material" -- This is a conflict we have about what this wiki is, I think. As expressed in the Free links v CamelCase discussion I prefer an attitude of both. Meaning, just because we are a MediaWiki Wiki, doesn't mean we have to be like Wikipedia, nor does it in my mind mean that we have to be like other MediaWiki. We are a wiki... the WikiWay... MarkDilley

Yes, we're using a mediawiki. We're using it because it's most appropriate for our purpose. If we're not producing a reference work, what are we doing? And your references to with WikiWay as if that's obvious and not only obvious but "better" in some way to something that not the WikiWay is offensive. What makes you think I'm not using the WikiWay? TedErnst | talk 11:32, 5 Apr 2006 (EDT)

Anything going to be added to this? —User:Sean Fennel@ 16:12, 1 Apr 2006 (EST)

No need to hide the table of contents. There's only one if there's at least three headings. —User:Sean Fennel@ 16:34, 3 Apr 2006 (EDT)

• Thanks Sean, I wondered how that worked. In my edits I had removed a few of the headings. MarkDilley

Category:Glossary

Could you say more about your thinking on Category:Glossary? Thanks! TedErnst | talk 11:56, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

I am trying to collect main wiki terms together. Trying to give Glossary some energy. Not exactly sure about it. MarkDilley

Category:Glossary as a category instead of Glossary as a page? I like your thinking! TedErnst | talk 18:56, 25 May 2006 (EDT)