6,456
edits
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (muddled response) |
(back at you) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
: and I would much rather use the '''DeletedPage''' tag... :-) again our collaboration is foiled!! Damn yee wiki... my experience is with it at [[Meatball:DeletedPage]]. We used it even before it became automated. To me it is a much more WikiWay to operate. The templates are cool and I like their use (limited though), I am trying to keep my use of wiki as simple as possible. This conversation will have to go somewhere else, but here are some things I was thinking. We are using MediaWiki software for this wiki. I have heard Wikipedia people say they don't know why anyone would use it if the weren't building an encyclopedia. I also agree with CommunityWiki that MediaWiki interfers with TheoryBuilding (in that there is discussion/talk page available for each page). We, and many people on the internet, are using MediaWiki because they have done a good job and made it the easiest wiki to install, amoung many other features. I am glad to be working on this project on a MediaWiki, but that doesn't mean I want to throw out what I know as wiki. There was a conversation early on about FreeLinks and CamelCase - it was set up as an either or ... I suggested it as both. As far as I am concerned, having both options hurts nothing here. Kinda goes along with my ideas of '''Versioning'''. As you have suggested before, we are not want for space. [[MarkDilley]] | : and I would much rather use the '''DeletedPage''' tag... :-) again our collaboration is foiled!! Damn yee wiki... my experience is with it at [[Meatball:DeletedPage]]. We used it even before it became automated. To me it is a much more WikiWay to operate. The templates are cool and I like their use (limited though), I am trying to keep my use of wiki as simple as possible. This conversation will have to go somewhere else, but here are some things I was thinking. We are using MediaWiki software for this wiki. I have heard Wikipedia people say they don't know why anyone would use it if the weren't building an encyclopedia. I also agree with CommunityWiki that MediaWiki interfers with TheoryBuilding (in that there is discussion/talk page available for each page). We, and many people on the internet, are using MediaWiki because they have done a good job and made it the easiest wiki to install, amoung many other features. I am glad to be working on this project on a MediaWiki, but that doesn't mean I want to throw out what I know as wiki. There was a conversation early on about FreeLinks and CamelCase - it was set up as an either or ... I suggested it as both. As far as I am concerned, having both options hurts nothing here. Kinda goes along with my ideas of '''Versioning'''. As you have suggested before, we are not want for space. [[MarkDilley]] | ||
Both options hurts if new people want to figure out what we're doing and we're not clear about it ourselves. If we're going to keep two, we either need to document them and explain how they're different in their use, or document them as two different ways to do the same thing, as a personal preference kind of thing. I like the template because it puts those pages into a category, where I can see all pages marked for deletion. DeletedPage is more difficult to use because it requires me to check backlinks, which aren't exactly easy to find. I was thinking about this more overnight and I really like the idea that pages aren't deleted right away. Maybe we could have a different template for each month, and then at the end of the month following (or in the middle or whatever), those pages could be deleted. Otherwise, I see no way to know when a page should be deleted. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 14:36, 4 Apr 2006 (EDT) |
edits