WikiIndex:Proposals
Proposal: 2006-01-29: New categories production
- We make the actual new cateogies after x time or x wiki fall into that category, pre-launch. MarkDilley
- Additional Categories. I found that if you add an additional category to a page (see CodeBook and AddYourOwn) you must also add the category command somewhere on the page so that it also categorized the article properly. I am concerned that this will be confusing to users, so for now, I am using this format to at least keep it all in one place: --Ray 17:04, 19 Jan 2006 (EST)
- I think they way we're adding new wiki's is fine now, can we retire this proposal? --Raymond King | talk 03:17, 23 Feb 2006 (EST)
Proposal: 2006-02-13: Authentic language categories
- see Category:Spanish discussion for more info/example.
Proposal: 2006-02-13: Image links
moved from StartUp Issues TedErnst | talk 12:14, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
- Map the WikiLogo to the Wiki_url, so as to have the additional link to their front page. MarkDilley
- Does anyone think it would be a) a good idea to map the logo image in the template to wiki_URL = and b) is it even possible to do such a crazy thing? :-) MarkDilley | talk
- Have heard this is not with in the knowledge of us, if it is even possilbe.
- Does anyone think it would be a) a good idea to map the logo image in the template to wiki_URL = and b) is it even possible to do such a crazy thing? :-) MarkDilley | talk
The good thing about this proposal is that it doesn't matter when we do it, if we do it, since it'll just be a change to the template that won't need anything done to each wiki. TedErnst | talk 13:04, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)
Proposal: 2006-02-14: Structured data
- What would the definition be for StructuredData
- Trying to clarify that because this site uses structured data, some things are done a little differently than other wiki. (wikipedia, meatball, etc). I think Structured Data is new to the wiki family, it is to me, so being clear about it will help.
Proposal: 2006-02-17 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
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: 2006-02-18 EditModes
Please see Category talk:Wiki Edit Mode#current for a proposal to collape Censored, InvitationOnly, Membership, Subscription, RequestLogin and Restricted to ApprovalRequired or some other suitable name. TedErnst | talk 12:23, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
- I really like what's been proposed and what's being done here --Raymond King | talk 03:21, 23 Feb 2006 (EST)
Proposal: 2006-02-18 License
I propose we drop the NC from the Creative Commons license. TedErnst | talk 15:48, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
- Can we discuss, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for this --Raymond King | talk 18:38, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
Yes, the NC means no one can use it on a site with adwords, nor can they publish in their print mag that they charge money for. Why would we want to limit commercial use, as long as the share-alike is there and they have to give away their source, the NC is too harsh, and seperates us from a huge body of free material, like wikipedia. TedErnst | talk 13:07, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)
Proposal 2006-02-18 Work in Progress
Let's revist what we're doing in each pass and re-do this sheet. --Raymond King | talk 02:14, 19 Feb 2006 (EST)
Proposal 2006-02-18 Glossary
I propose we make a Glossary with all of the WikiIndex terms so people don't get mixed up with stuff like "Private" vs. "Personal", etc. --Raymond King | talk 02:18, 19 Feb 2006 (EST)
Proposal 2006-02-19 Good Examples
How about we make a page with "Good Examples" so that people get an idea of how to make a great article? --Raymond King | talk 12:44, 19 Feb 2006 (EST)
Proposal 2006-02-19 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)