ConRunner talk:Community Portal - Revision history

Farix: /* PaserFunctions */

2009-05-17T22:22:06Z

‎PaserFunctions

Bill Taylor: /* PaserFunctions */

2009-05-03T21:24:27Z

‎PaserFunctions

Farix at 21:58, 2 May 2009

2009-05-02T21:58:32Z

Bill Taylor: /* Fan History */

2008-06-22T19:25:25Z

‎Fan History

Bill Taylor: /* Fan History */

2008-06-22T19:25:03Z

‎Fan History

LauraHale: Fan History

2008-06-21T21:15:56Z

Fan History

Bill Taylor: Calendar

2005-12-09T23:46:03Z

Calendar

Bill Taylor at 17:28, 15 October 2005

2005-10-15T17:28:33Z

Dd-b: New category tag or something for "controversy"

2005-10-14T17:18:49Z

New category tag or something for "controversy"

Dd-b: Non-objection to the grouping

2005-10-14T17:05:22Z

Non-objection to the grouping

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 17 May 2009
Line 46:		Line 46:

	:I don't see it in the extensions. What would be the value of adding it? That are very few customizations in this wiki. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)		:I don't see it in the extensions. What would be the value of adding it? That are very few customizations in this wiki. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Many of Wikipedia's modern templates now use some form of parser function in them. It allows the templates to alter their behavior or text depending on the parameters that are passed to it. For example I've been thinking of copying over an earlier version of the template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Convention, which uses parser functions to hide the empty fields. The current version is based off of another template[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox] that also uses parser function, but I don't see an advantage in copying over both since there isn't a need for other infoboxes. --[[User:Farix\|Farix]] ([[User talk:Farix\|Talk]]) 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 3 May 2009
Line 44:		Line 44:

	Has the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions ParserFunctions extension] been added to this site? --[[User:Farix\|Farix]] 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)		Has the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions ParserFunctions extension] been added to this site? --[[User:Farix\|Farix]] 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I don't see it in the extensions. What would be the value of adding it? That are very few customizations in this wiki. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-=New Terminology=
+==New Terminology==
 Of course we should include (and explain) all widely used terminology.  However, I'm seeing a lot  of terminology that so far as I can tell ''isn't'' used in con-running, but is being imported from mundane event-planning and business circles.  Some of this terminology really grates on me ("member services"), and others of it conflicts with well-established and widely-used con-running terminology ("operations").  I think it's fairly important that we not introduce ''new'' terminology unless there's a compelling reason; things are confused enough as they are! --[[User:Dd-b|dd-b]] 00:27, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :What did you have in mind?  We have a pretty well developed Convention Calendar, but that isn't really historical. --[[User:Bill Taylor|Bill Taylor]] 12:25, 22 June 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 22 June 2008
Line 39:		Line 39:
	Hey, you have a lot of potentially useful information here. It really isn't getting much attention. I was wondering if you might be willing to help over at [http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php/Category:Conventions the conventions section on Fan History]? --[[User:LauraHale\|LauraHale]] 14:15, 21 June 2008 (PDT)		Hey, you have a lot of potentially useful information here. It really isn't getting much attention. I was wondering if you might be willing to help over at [http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php/Category:Conventions the conventions section on Fan History]? --[[User:LauraHale\|LauraHale]] 14:15, 21 June 2008 (PDT)

−	:What did you have in mind? We have a pretty well developed Convention Calendar, but that isn't really historical.	+	:What did you have in mind? We have a pretty well developed Convention Calendar, but that isn't really historical. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 12:25, 22 June 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 22 June 2008
Line 38:		Line 38:

	Hey, you have a lot of potentially useful information here. It really isn't getting much attention. I was wondering if you might be willing to help over at [http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php/Category:Conventions the conventions section on Fan History]? --[[User:LauraHale\|LauraHale]] 14:15, 21 June 2008 (PDT)		Hey, you have a lot of potentially useful information here. It really isn't getting much attention. I was wondering if you might be willing to help over at [http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php/Category:Conventions the conventions section on Fan History]? --[[User:LauraHale\|LauraHale]] 14:15, 21 June 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	:What did you have in mind? We have a pretty well developed Convention Calendar, but that isn't really historical.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:15, 21 June 2008
Line 34:		Line 34:

	--[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 15:46, 9 Dec 2005 (PST)		--[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 15:46, 9 Dec 2005 (PST)
		+
		+	== Fan History ==
		+
		+	Hey, you have a lot of potentially useful information here. It really isn't getting much attention. I was wondering if you might be willing to help over at [http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php/Category:Conventions the conventions section on Fan History]? --[[User:LauraHale\|LauraHale]] 14:15, 21 June 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:46, 9 December 2005
Line 28:		Line 28:

	--[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 10:28, 15 Oct 2005 (PDT)		--[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 10:28, 15 Oct 2005 (PDT)
		+
		+	== Calendar ==
		+
		+	The ISP hosting this site has made it easy to add WebCalendar http://www.k5n.us/webcalendar.php to the overall site. I think it might be nice to add a look ahead (or look back) calendar to the site. Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to make it work within the wiki engine proper. It would run on the side and just act as a giant datebook. Anyone visiting from the www.conrunner.net main page would have two choices, the calendar and the wiki. There would be links between the wiki Main Page and the Calendar main page. But once you were inside the wiki there is no (obvious) way to put entries into the calendar or to read the ones that are there. What do people think? Good? Bad? Keep looking? Find a way to integrate them?
		+
		+	--[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 15:46, 9 Dec 2005 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 15 October 2005
Line 21:		Line 21:

	--[[User:Dd-b\|dd-b]] 10:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)		--[[User:Dd-b\|dd-b]] 10:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)
		+
		+
		+	== Minimum convention organization ==
		+
		+	Lets say some group is setting up a new convention. Is there a bare minimum organization this group should try to establish to be sure they are "covered"? I'm thinking that maybe a Good / Better / Best checklist article would be nice to have for the rank newbie. Think teenagers trying to step up from a weekend gaming party in the garage to a local tournament in a rented banquet room. A brand-spankin'-new small "convention".
		+
		+	--[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 10:28, 15 Oct 2005 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 14 October 2005
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Hard for me to tell how I would have reacted to different terminology. So far as I can tell, my reaction is to the labels themselves and not to the grouping; but I haven't actually examined the grouping very carefully yet. It may have a significant contribution to make to understanding how conventions work. --[[User:Dd-b\|dd-b]] 10:05, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)		Hard for me to tell how I would have reacted to different terminology. So far as I can tell, my reaction is to the labels themselves and not to the grouping; but I haven't actually examined the grouping very carefully yet. It may have a significant contribution to make to understanding how conventions work. --[[User:Dd-b\|dd-b]] 10:05, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)
		+
		+	== New category tag or something for "controversy" ==
		+
		+	I've been thinking it might be useful to add a tag for articles that are about some significant controversy. The purpose is two-fold.
		+
		+	First, acknowledging a subject as controversial can help alert people to the need to be careful with what they write.
		+
		+	Second, it can help us find the articles that need a closer eye kept on them (in case anybody carelessly or maliciously gets too promotional for their point of view).
		+
		+	Maybe a special template which puts a notice in the article might be a better approach (if those are findable). I don't know the software system well enough to know what we can really do here.
		+
		+	Before getting too technical on how, do people feel that something like this would be a good thing?
		+
		+	--[[User:Dd-b\|dd-b]] 10:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 14 October 2005
Line 4:		Line 4:

	In retrospect, introducing functional analysis has obviously engendered a bad reaction. People expect to see things they way they have always been. Breaking out specific needed functions independent of the department that usually executes them confused people, especially when the names sometimes overlap and somtimes don't. Made perfect sense to me, but I'm the one that did it. But then I don't believe it would have been received significantly better had it been grouped the same way, but labled A, B, C, D, E, F --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 08:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)		In retrospect, introducing functional analysis has obviously engendered a bad reaction. People expect to see things they way they have always been. Breaking out specific needed functions independent of the department that usually executes them confused people, especially when the names sometimes overlap and somtimes don't. Made perfect sense to me, but I'm the one that did it. But then I don't believe it would have been received significantly better had it been grouped the same way, but labled A, B, C, D, E, F --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 08:18, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)
		+
		+
		+	Hard for me to tell how I would have reacted to different terminology. So far as I can tell, my reaction is to the labels themselves and not to the grouping; but I haven't actually examined the grouping very carefully yet. It may have a significant contribution to make to understanding how conventions work. --[[User:Dd-b\|dd-b]] 10:05, 14 Oct 2005 (PDT)