Talk:Operations - Revision history

Bill Taylor: /* Unambiguous Terms */

2008-07-15T15:33:43Z

‎Unambiguous Terms

Furp at 22:42, 14 July 2008

2008-07-14T22:42:25Z

Bill Taylor at 01:03, 1 February 2007

2007-02-01T01:03:21Z

Bill Taylor at 01:02, 1 February 2007

2007-02-01T01:02:56Z

Phi: /* Unambiguous Terms */ wikify

2007-01-31T23:14:34Z

‎Unambiguous Terms: wikify

Phi: Unambiguous Terms

2007-01-31T23:12:15Z

Unambiguous Terms

Bill Taylor: /* Disambiguation */

2007-01-20T09:24:25Z

‎Disambiguation

Phi: /* Disambiguation */

2007-01-18T19:08:05Z

‎Disambiguation

Phi: /* Disambiguation */

2007-01-18T19:07:28Z

‎Disambiguation

Phi: Disambiguation

2007-01-18T19:05:49Z

Disambiguation

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 15 July 2008
Line 73:		Line 73:

	:::With that in mind I'm going to see about flushing something out for Security, because you make mention of it in the tree chart on the main page, stating that security is a branch of operations, but don't have any reference to it in the operations page. --[[User:Furp\|Furp]] 01:42, 15 July 2008 (GMT +03:00)		:::With that in mind I'm going to see about flushing something out for Security, because you make mention of it in the tree chart on the main page, stating that security is a branch of operations, but don't have any reference to it in the operations page. --[[User:Furp\|Furp]] 01:42, 15 July 2008 (GMT +03:00)
		+
		+	::::Great. Thanks for the help. The structure here is somewhat flexible, so link it into wherever appropriate. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 14 July 2008
Line 71:		Line 71:

	::Pretty much every red link you see in the wiki is an empty article, dying to be filled with content. Just write something, and link it to a major category or two. It would be nice if it had some internal wiki links as well. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 17:03, 31 January 2007 (PST)		::Pretty much every red link you see in the wiki is an empty article, dying to be filled with content. Just write something, and link it to a major category or two. It would be nice if it had some internal wiki links as well. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 17:03, 31 January 2007 (PST)
		+
		+	:::With that in mind I'm going to see about flushing something out for Security, because you make mention of it in the tree chart on the main page, stating that security is a branch of operations, but don't have any reference to it in the operations page. --[[User:Furp\|Furp]] 01:42, 15 July 2008 (GMT +03:00)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:03, 1 February 2007
Line 70:		Line 70:
	:We already have some articles like those ([[At-Con]], [[Administrative Affairs]], [[Program Ops]] ) and we can easily create the others ([[Administration]], [[Executive]], [[Runtime]], [[Convention Office]]) by just filling in some content. And the first step might be to put them in the Glossary category so people will know what the heck they mean. Then '''also''' tag them into the "correct" functional categories. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 17:02, 31 January 2007 (PST)		:We already have some articles like those ([[At-Con]], [[Administrative Affairs]], [[Program Ops]] ) and we can easily create the others ([[Administration]], [[Executive]], [[Runtime]], [[Convention Office]]) by just filling in some content. And the first step might be to put them in the Glossary category so people will know what the heck they mean. Then '''also''' tag them into the "correct" functional categories. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 17:02, 31 January 2007 (PST)

−	::Pretty much every red link you see in the wiki is an empty article, dying to be filled with content. Just write something, and link it to a major category or two. It would be nice if it had some internal wiki links as well.	+	::Pretty much every red link you see in the wiki is an empty article, dying to be filled with content. Just write something, and link it to a major category or two. It would be nice if it had some internal wiki links as well. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 17:03, 31 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:02, 1 February 2007
Line 67:		Line 67:

	--[[User:Phi\|phi]] 15:12, 31 January 2007 (PST)		--[[User:Phi\|phi]] 15:12, 31 January 2007 (PST)
		+
		+	:We already have some articles like those ([[At-Con]], [[Administrative Affairs]], [[Program Ops]] ) and we can easily create the others ([[Administration]], [[Executive]], [[Runtime]], [[Convention Office]]) by just filling in some content. And the first step might be to put them in the Glossary category so people will know what the heck they mean. Then '''also''' tag them into the "correct" functional categories. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 17:02, 31 January 2007 (PST)
		+
		+	::Pretty much every red link you see in the wiki is an empty article, dying to be filled with content. Just write something, and link it to a major category or two. It would be nice if it had some internal wiki links as well.

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 == Unambiguous Terms ==
-Everything being described here (and in the equally confusing Operations category and Operations Support page) has multiple names, one of which includes the letters O and P in that order and one of which does not.  I suggest:
+Everything being described here (and in the equally confusing Operations category and [[Operations Support]] page) has multiple names, one of which includes the letters O and P in that order and one of which does not.  I suggest:
-"Program Ops" for the department and location that's called that in the US and Ops in the UK
+* "Program Ops" (or maybe there is a better term, but there's already a [[Program Ops]] page here that's largely redundant with the current content of this page) for the department and location that's called that in the US and Ops in the UK
-"Convention Office" for the department and location that's called that in the UK and Ops in the US
+* "Convention Office" for the department and location that's called that in the UK and Ops in the US
-"At-Con" or "Runtime" for the concept that's called that in the US and (confusingly) Ops in the UK
+* "At-Con" or "Runtime" for the concept that's called that in the US and (confusingly) Ops in the UK
-"Administration" for the division that's called that in the UK and (confusingly) Ops in parts of the US
+* "Administration" for the division that's called that in the UK and (confusingly) Ops in parts of the US
-"Executive" for the concept that's called that in the UK and (confusingly) Ops in parts of the US
+* "Executive" for the concept that's called that in the UK and (confusingly) Ops in parts of the US
 There may be yet more things that get called Ops sometimes, but even ignoring the UK/US nomenclature issues I think the best solution is to let none of those use the word "Operations" to describe themselves on this site.
 --[[User:Phi|phi]] 15:12, 31 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 31 January 2007
Line 53:		Line 53:

	: Disambiguation is one option, but I think categorization can deal with some of what you've said. I see two different problems. One, to get all the content down somewhere, and Two, to put the right headings, titles and links on it. If the title of this article could be better, or the content needs to be beefed up or split down, that can be done. And not just by me. In the worst case, we can just revert badly mangled articles. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 01:24, 20 January 2007 (PST)		: Disambiguation is one option, but I think categorization can deal with some of what you've said. I see two different problems. One, to get all the content down somewhere, and Two, to put the right headings, titles and links on it. If the title of this article could be better, or the content needs to be beefed up or split down, that can be done. And not just by me. In the worst case, we can just revert badly mangled articles. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 01:24, 20 January 2007 (PST)
		+
		+	== Unambiguous Terms ==
		+
		+	Everything being described here (and in the equally confusing Operations category and Operations Support page) has multiple names, one of which includes the letters O and P in that order and one of which does not. I suggest:
		+
		+	"Program Ops" for the department and location that's called that in the US and Ops in the UK
		+	"Convention Office" for the department and location that's called that in the UK and Ops in the US
		+	"At-Con" or "Runtime" for the concept that's called that in the US and (confusingly) Ops in the UK
		+	"Administration" for the division that's called that in the UK and (confusingly) Ops in parts of the US
		+	"Executive" for the concept that's called that in the UK and (confusingly) Ops in parts of the US
		+
		+	There may be yet more things that get called Ops sometimes, but even ignoring the UK/US nomenclature issues I think the best solution is to let none of those use the word "Operations" to describe themselves on this site.
		+
		+	--[[User:Phi\|phi]] 15:12, 31 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:24, 20 January 2007
Line 51:		Line 51:

	-- [[User:Phi\|phi]] 14:07, 18 Jan 2007 (EST)		-- [[User:Phi\|phi]] 14:07, 18 Jan 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	: Disambiguation is one option, but I think categorization can deal with some of what you've said. I see two different problems. One, to get all the content down somewhere, and Two, to put the right headings, titles and links on it. If the title of this article could be better, or the content needs to be beefed up or split down, that can be done. And not just by me. In the worst case, we can just revert badly mangled articles. --[[User:Bill Taylor\|Bill Taylor]] 01:24, 20 January 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 18 January 2007
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Arisia, by the way, has all three Ops models concurrently, and boy is it confusing to newcomers.		Arisia, by the way, has all three Ops models concurrently, and boy is it confusing to newcomers.

−	-- [[User:Phi\|phi]]	+	-- [[User:Phi\|phi]] 14:07, 18 Jan 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 18 January 2007
Line 49:		Line 49:

	Arisia, by the way, has all three Ops models concurrently, and boy is it confusing to newcomers.		Arisia, by the way, has all three Ops models concurrently, and boy is it confusing to newcomers.
		+
		+	-- [[User:Phi\|phi]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 18 January 2007
Line 38:		Line 38:

	[[User:KAStandlee\|Kevin Standlee]] 16:45, 12 Jan 2007 (PST)		[[User:KAStandlee\|Kevin Standlee]] 16:45, 12 Jan 2007 (PST)
		+
		+	== Disambiguation ==
		+
		+	I see at least three articles here:
		+	* What I have seen called "Program Ops", which matches the current content of the article
		+	* What I have seen called "Small Ops", which is an office and/or logistical function
		+	* What I have seen called "Big Ops", which is the expression of executive authority at-con
		+	* Possibly, a discussion of regional customs affecting, and interaction among, the various different kinds of operational functions
		+	Perhaps "Operations" should be a disambiguation page, not a content page.
		+
		+	Arisia, by the way, has all three Ops models concurrently, and boy is it confusing to newcomers.