WikiIndex:Proposals

Proposal 17-Feb-2006: ordering on this page

I re-ordered this page to put newest at the bottom to encourge us to deal with the older ones first, and move them off this page. Also, don't know if you know about this feature, but there is a + item next to the "edit" link at the top of talk pages. That feature adds a new section, without having to edit the whole page. Since that new section goes at the bottom, this re-organization allows that feature to be used on this page. TedErnst | talk 12:10, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)

• I think that the page should be added to the top, not withstanding the section editing function. It is more friendly to read new proposals at the top. MarkDilley | talk
  • Mark, if this was moved to the archive in error, please move it back to the Proposals page so it can be further discussed. I also invite you to go further in your reasoning as it's feeling like "because I said so" again. TedErnst | talk 22:47, 19 Feb 2006 (EST)
    • Mark, tell us more why this is still active? TedErnst | talk 13:06, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

Yes, and I propose that we make an area for the proposals we've moved off this list, perhaps "ProposalArchive" or something like that --Raymond King | talk 18:40, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)

• ProposalArchive and Guidelines, agreed upon would be more specific to what happened to the ideas. MarkDilley | talk
  • Guidelines will be sufficient for positive decisions, and ProposalArchive for history of all these conversations. TedErnst | talk 13:06, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)
  • I agree --Raymond King | talk 03:20, 23 Feb 2006 (EST)

Proposal 19-Feb-2006: Wiki Engine Template

The basic article template "Wiki List" is being used for Engine category pages. Almost all engines have a wiki, for example, MoinMoin has MoinMoinWiki. In this case, there is a page for the wiki (MoinMoinWiki) as well as a page for the engine category (category:MoinMoin). I believe this is correct. In the case of Lizzy, there is just a single page for both the wiki and the engine: (category:Lizzy). This creates a recursive situation where the article points to itself. I'm not sure this is a big problem, but now would be a good time for us to establish consistent rules.

Checkout UseModWiki. Mark and I have been working on his idea that the page for an engine has the template box for the wiki for that engine and the list of wikis using that engine down below. I think we've learned a lot. Lizzy is part of our experiment. It's definitely time to get down to business documenting what we've learned and then decide how to proceed. TedErnst | talk 15:57, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

I'm still a bit confused, but recommend that perhaps we make a WikiEngine template to try to solve the problem? --Raymond King | talk 23:02, 19 Feb 2006 (EST)

We already have one Template:Wiki Engine. It's not that simple, however. I'm not sure I understand it myself, to be honest. Mark? TedErnst | talk 13:10, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

I just edited Template:Wiki Engine to remove "last reviewed" and add WikiNode, like we have with Template:Wiki. Is this idea still in play? Of the soft-redirects with the categories? TedErnst | talk 16:36, 14 Apr 2006 (EDT)

I would like to continue in that direction, unless their is a big objection. Even if we change midstream on it, it is not a ton of work. MarkDilley

Proposal 26-Feb-2006: Future linking

Specifically I am thinking about WikiNodes that need to be created. But as a theoretical issue, I think it helps people to understand the whole internet could be wiki. WikiBardo is along these lines. MarkDilley | talk

• examples:
  • Upcoming.org_Community
  • BaylesShanks

Proposal 03-Mar-2006: NotAWiki

Please see Category talk:NotAWiki for discussion. What do we do wtih websites about wikis? What do we do with sites that used to be wikis, but are not any longer? TedErnst | talk 11:47, 3 Mar 2006 (EST)

• Inactive category for those? They used to be wiki but aren't anymore. MarkDilley | talk

Proposal 05-Mar-2006: RealNames

First, let me say that I appreciate anyone and everyone working on this project. I do want to propose that we make it a site standard to Use Real Names or work anonymously. Best, MarkDilley | talk

Could you say more about this, Mark? I ask because I'm totally supportive of UseRealNames for meatball or any other project where "community" is more of a focus than producing information for the public. For any wiki, I feel a lot more comfortable interacting with a person with a real name than with a pseudonym, though if I knew who that person was in real life, I might feel differently. I also feel more comfortable working with a logged in person, no matter what name, than I do working with an IP address. Reputation is tied to that login name, not just to the real person behind it. I am really looking forward to more conversation on this.

TedErnst | talk 18:37, 5 Mar 2006 (EST)

Well Ted, I think you said it. Community is more a focus than the production of knowledge. I do think that we have to allow for anonymity though. So, as I agree with you that I personally would rather people sign in, I think that allowing people to participate, but OptOut of the RealNames (proposed) site guideline, is important. IP addresses are unfortunately a part of that. Best, MarkDilley | talk

After quick discussion, working on RealNames MarkDilley | talk

Proposal 08-Apr-2006: Name structures

• Change title of "Category Articles" to "Wiki"

Proposal 08-Apr-2006: Namespace conventions

• Namespace Conventions

Proposal 08-Apr-2006: Description

• I agree with the sentiment of the Description header at Template talk:Wiki Boilerplate - seems redundant, but the edit tag is nicely placed.