Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard/Archive 2006: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Month templates: archiving) |
m (New template.) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Template:Messageboard archives|2006}} | |||
==Technical difficulties== | ==Technical difficulties== | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
I expect that it will be a positive review, but she did get me speculating on the nature of truth and the trustworthiness of wikis, on which I can wax philosophic without grounding. I hope I have not misrepresented any of your work.<br><br> | I expect that it will be a positive review, but she did get me speculating on the nature of truth and the trustworthiness of wikis, on which I can wax philosophic without grounding. I hope I have not misrepresented any of your work.<br><br> | ||
It is possible that, as a result of this publicity, we will see a lot of new editors. This has me both excited and nervous. I will greatly appreciate the help of our experienced contributers with welcoming newcomers and gently correcting any abuses that might manifest themselves. Please let me know if you observe any problems that need my attention. I expect to have a high tolerance for rookie mistakes, but a low tolerance for troublemaking. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 19:06, 16 November 2006 (PST) | It is possible that, as a result of this publicity, we will see a lot of new editors. This has me both excited and nervous. I will greatly appreciate the help of our experienced contributers with welcoming newcomers and gently correcting any abuses that might manifest themselves. Please let me know if you observe any problems that need my attention. I expect to have a high tolerance for rookie mistakes, but a low tolerance for troublemaking. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 19:06, 16 November 2006 (PST) | ||
=="Signs" category?== | =="Signs" category?== | ||
| Line 119: | Line 31: | ||
* Here's what I would do... For truly significant signs (such as the [[Barber's clock]] or the "Welcome to the Magic City" sign that was outside the terminal station) which might merit a separate article, we can make a [[:Category:Signs]]. Otherwise, maybe a category, such as [[:Category:Buildings with signage]] would make it too hard to distinguish noteworthy signs, like the ones you list, from your run-of-the-mill Walgreen's. With that being the case, I propose a [[List of notable signs]] as a separate article to which the other articles can be linked: e. g. "<nowiki>The current building is known best for the monumental 176 by 26 foot electronic [[List of notable signs|marquee]] mounted on top which displays advertising messages using an array of 1,440 incandescent bulb</nowiki>" (for [[Two North Twentieth]]). Also, if we collect a group of photographs of the signs, those can be collected in their own category, and/or a gallery article would be nice. Sound okay? --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 05:57, 27 November 2006 (PST) | * Here's what I would do... For truly significant signs (such as the [[Barber's clock]] or the "Welcome to the Magic City" sign that was outside the terminal station) which might merit a separate article, we can make a [[:Category:Signs]]. Otherwise, maybe a category, such as [[:Category:Buildings with signage]] would make it too hard to distinguish noteworthy signs, like the ones you list, from your run-of-the-mill Walgreen's. With that being the case, I propose a [[List of notable signs]] as a separate article to which the other articles can be linked: e. g. "<nowiki>The current building is known best for the monumental 176 by 26 foot electronic [[List of notable signs|marquee]] mounted on top which displays advertising messages using an array of 1,440 incandescent bulb</nowiki>" (for [[Two North Twentieth]]). Also, if we collect a group of photographs of the signs, those can be collected in their own category, and/or a gallery article would be nice. Sound okay? --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 05:57, 27 November 2006 (PST) | ||
:*I like the list idea right now instead of the category. I would hate to see a bunch of national chain restaurants, drug stores and the likes show up in a category that was meant for the truly local and unusual signs. At least with the list we can put the [[Two North Twentieth]], [[City Federal]], [[WBRC]], [[Barber's clock]] and the like without necessarily creating a separate article just for the sign if it is attached to a significant building. [[User:Wheresdib|--Wheresdib]] 07:22, 27 November 2006 (PST) | :*I like the list idea right now instead of the category. I would hate to see a bunch of national chain restaurants, drug stores and the likes show up in a category that was meant for the truly local and unusual signs. At least with the list we can put the [[Two North Twentieth]], [[City Federal]], [[WBRC 6]], [[Barber's clock]] and the like without necessarily creating a separate article just for the sign if it is attached to a significant building. [[User:Wheresdib|--Wheresdib]] 07:22, 27 November 2006 (PST) | ||
:*sounds good:) --[[user:sagefats|sagefats]] | :*sounds good:) --[[user:sagefats|sagefats]] | ||
| Line 141: | Line 53: | ||
* As you have discovered, I am of two minds on the subject. As long as the organization of the article is apparent, I still don't have a strong preference. Ultimately, I think the best thing is for an overall article to discuss major developments over time. So subject headings like "First years", "Peak years", with individual occurrences incorporated into the text, would probably be the sign of a mature article. In that case, the order would probably follow a historical chronology and individual years might merit their own articles to document more trivial aspects. (Like the City Stages articles). --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 09:09, 14 December 2006 (PST) | * As you have discovered, I am of two minds on the subject. As long as the organization of the article is apparent, I still don't have a strong preference. Ultimately, I think the best thing is for an overall article to discuss major developments over time. So subject headings like "First years", "Peak years", with individual occurrences incorporated into the text, would probably be the sign of a mature article. In that case, the order would probably follow a historical chronology and individual years might merit their own articles to document more trivial aspects. (Like the City Stages articles). --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 09:09, 14 December 2006 (PST) | ||
== | ==Continued== | ||
* See [[Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard/Archive 2007]] for continuation of discussion. | |||
Latest revision as of 09:23, 29 March 2014
- This is an archive of discussions from 2006. For other archived discussions, see Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard archives. Current discussion is at Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard. If you wish to expand on a topic here, it's best to open a new topic there and link to the prior discussion.
Technical difficulties
BhamWiki is hosted by Dreamhost.com, which came highly recommended when I signed up, but has had a difficult summer and is apparently still having issues keeping our site humming. I am willing to consider alternatives to Dreamhost if other users have strong recommendations. My own technical knowledge is paltry. --Dystopos 07:38, 20 November 2006 (PST)
- I talked to a friend who runs another site I frequent and he uses GoDaddy for hosting services and doesn't have any problems. I can't vouch for anyone though. Another wiki that I foray into (Lostpedia) uses Jupiter Hosting and I have never had a problem accessing that site. --Wheresdib 14:24, 22 November 2006 (PST)
- I don't know what standards to set. At least Dreamhost is responsive, communicative to the point of even being friendly. I just wish I didn't have to communicate with them so often. I guess I'll come to a decision by March when my 1 year contract is up. --Dystopos 15:31, 22 November 2006 (PST)
- ed. note - my hosting account has been renewed at Dreamhost for 2007. --Dystopos 07:04, 16 March 2007 (PDT)
- I don't know what standards to set. At least Dreamhost is responsive, communicative to the point of even being friendly. I just wish I didn't have to communicate with them so often. I guess I'll come to a decision by March when my 1 year contract is up. --Dystopos 15:31, 22 November 2006 (PST)
BhamWiki Meet-up?
To all interested...
What does everyone think about maybe trying to have a get together on the day after Thanksgiving? If any of y'all are in town and available, it would be nice to meet some of y'all in person and explore our fair city. I leave this open for discussion... --Patriarca12 07:42, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- I'll be in Lower Alabama that day... probably driving back Sunday after church. --Dystopos 07:48, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- I will be around that day, I have to work. My office is downtown in the John A. Hand Building, we could meet for lunch somewhere nearby, maybe Scott's Koneys. I am also off the next Monday 11/27. --Wheresdib 08:06, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- I'd love to meet you guys, but I have other commitments that day. My forays to B'ham these days are sadly infrequent. --Lkseitz 09:41, 31 October 2006 (PST)
- Lol, I'd also like to meet everyone, but, unfortunately, I don't know where I'll be spending Thanksgiving, either Gadsden or Geneva, but, either way, I won't be able to make the trip from Decatur. :~( AlabamaGuy2007 20:19, 1 November 2006 (PST)
Is anyone still interested in meeting this Friday? I will be around the office all day, and it shouldn't be busy. Let me know if interested either here or on my talk page. --Wheresdib 14:21, 22 November 2006 (PST)
Birmingham News article
It is likely that the Birmingham News will profile BhamWiki over Thanksgiving weekend. User:Lkseitz and I have been interviewed by staff writer Erin Stock who found us while Googling Legion Field and thereby got the scoop. She would like to hear from anyone else involved in the project that is interested in helping her with the story. You can contact her through the newspaper or ask me for contact info.
I expect that it will be a positive review, but she did get me speculating on the nature of truth and the trustworthiness of wikis, on which I can wax philosophic without grounding. I hope I have not misrepresented any of your work.
It is possible that, as a result of this publicity, we will see a lot of new editors. This has me both excited and nervous. I will greatly appreciate the help of our experienced contributers with welcoming newcomers and gently correcting any abuses that might manifest themselves. Please let me know if you observe any problems that need my attention. I expect to have a high tolerance for rookie mistakes, but a low tolerance for troublemaking. --Dystopos 19:06, 16 November 2006 (PST)
"Signs" category?
would this be a possible category for articles? perhaps relating to the proposed bhamwiki:architecture portal or something? i just think of all the interesting signage around town, City Federal, Redmont Hotel, that huge electric messageboard downtown, WBRC, Dixie Neon, the big C on the Cabana Building, Carraway's rotating star, the Alabama Theatre, the old Vulcan green/red torch, the old neon signs that used to adorn every church like 16th St. Baptist., etc...
good idea or no? -- User:Sagefats.
- Here's what I would do... For truly significant signs (such as the Barber's clock or the "Welcome to the Magic City" sign that was outside the terminal station) which might merit a separate article, we can make a Category:Signs. Otherwise, maybe a category, such as Category:Buildings with signage would make it too hard to distinguish noteworthy signs, like the ones you list, from your run-of-the-mill Walgreen's. With that being the case, I propose a List of notable signs as a separate article to which the other articles can be linked: e. g. "The current building is known best for the monumental 176 by 26 foot electronic [[List of notable signs|marquee]] mounted on top which displays advertising messages using an array of 1,440 incandescent bulb" (for Two North Twentieth). Also, if we collect a group of photographs of the signs, those can be collected in their own category, and/or a gallery article would be nice. Sound okay? --Dystopos 05:57, 27 November 2006 (PST)
- I like the list idea right now instead of the category. I would hate to see a bunch of national chain restaurants, drug stores and the likes show up in a category that was meant for the truly local and unusual signs. At least with the list we can put the Two North Twentieth, City Federal, WBRC 6, Barber's clock and the like without necessarily creating a separate article just for the sign if it is attached to a significant building. --Wheresdib 07:22, 27 November 2006 (PST)
- sounds good:) --sagefats
- I've found enough information to write an article about the sign at Terminal Station, but what should it be called? --Lkseitz 15:22, 30 November 2006 (PST)
- Good question. My first thought is "Terminal Station welcome sign", --Dystopos 16:17, 30 November 2006 (PST)
- How about "Magic City sign"? --Lkseitz 08:37, 14 December 2006 (PST)
- Works for me. Who's writing the article? --Dystopos 09:15, 14 December 2006 (PST)
- If Lee has the info to write it, he should :P --Wheresdib 09:58, 14 December 2006 (PST)
Going back to the original question posed by Sagefats, do we want to create a category or list of these signs? --Wheresdib 10:58, 15 December 2006 (PST)
- Yes, both I think. --Dystopos 07:02, 16 December 2006 (PST)
Chronological order
I've noticed an inconsistency in articles dealing with annual events. Most, I believe, list events in reverse chronological order. (That is, newest first.) Examples are Vestavia Hills Dogwood Festival and Magic City Art Connection. Others are in chronological order, such as Crawfish Boil and Rickwood Classic. I was thinking a consistent policy might be good for this issue.
Personally, I prefer to read things in chronological order (oldest first). It would also require less changes over time in regards to bolding the first instance of a term in the article. It also makes it easier to scan for the first year a sub-event was held, assuming it's in bold text. I can see the point of saying that over time some people will only want to read the most recent information each time they visit, but it seems to me that would primarily apply to us hard-core editors, not the average web surfer. Other opinions? --Lkseitz 08:37, 14 December 2006 (PST)
- As you have discovered, I am of two minds on the subject. As long as the organization of the article is apparent, I still don't have a strong preference. Ultimately, I think the best thing is for an overall article to discuss major developments over time. So subject headings like "First years", "Peak years", with individual occurrences incorporated into the text, would probably be the sign of a mature article. In that case, the order would probably follow a historical chronology and individual years might merit their own articles to document more trivial aspects. (Like the City Stages articles). --Dystopos 09:09, 14 December 2006 (PST)
Continued
- See Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard/Archive 2007 for continuation of discussion.