User talk:Jillium: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins|talk]]) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST) | It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins|talk]]) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST) | ||
:In my opinion, restructuring the wiki would be a better choice. The standard blog format, with recent posts burying older ones, doesn't make sense for timeless content and can be difficult to navigate. A CMS without the blog format would be okay, but probably even less successful in encouraging collaborative article editing, which MediaWiki is designed for. | |||
:Moving to a CMS while archiving the wiki would leave two versions of the same content. Duplicate content doesn't fare well with search engines, and the version already established on Google (wiki) would presumably become outdated. There's also the French translations to consider. We could still modernize a bit by editing the stylesheet to hide wiki functionality from logged-out users who don't need it. (Just as examples: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Minit_skin_-_anonymous_user.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:SkinScreenshotScreenRealEstate.PNG] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Cavendish_mod.png][https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:DroneSkin.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:WordPress_TwentyTen_skin.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:MediaWikiSkinTheErudite.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:BluWiki.png]) | |||
:Regarding your BC post, I doubt MediaWiki's learning curve is much to blame for the state of NW. There are after all [http://ttte.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity very active] wikis about Thomas the Tank Engine and every other trivial subject, and our old WordPress is even deader than this wiki. There just aren't many people who have the stamina to contribute on any platform in this cultural climate. | |||
:Do you have any intentions for the splash page? If the forum's not coming back, I could create a new link image for some other section if you want. The font is D3 Egoistism. [[User:Jillium|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium|talk]]) 02:10, 9 October 2013 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 00:10, 9 October 2013
Archives: 2009 to 2011
Yo
You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? Ty 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
What is your opinion?
It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. The Admins (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST)
- In my opinion, restructuring the wiki would be a better choice. The standard blog format, with recent posts burying older ones, doesn't make sense for timeless content and can be difficult to navigate. A CMS without the blog format would be okay, but probably even less successful in encouraging collaborative article editing, which MediaWiki is designed for.
- Moving to a CMS while archiving the wiki would leave two versions of the same content. Duplicate content doesn't fare well with search engines, and the version already established on Google (wiki) would presumably become outdated. There's also the French translations to consider. We could still modernize a bit by editing the stylesheet to hide wiki functionality from logged-out users who don't need it. (Just as examples: [1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7])
![[1]](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Minit_skin_-_anonymous_user.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:SkinScreenshotScreenRealEstate.PNG){kind=link}
![[3]](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Cavendish_mod.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:DroneSkin.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:WordPress_TwentyTen_skin.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:MediaWikiSkinTheErudite.png){kind=link}
![[7]](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:BluWiki.png){kind=link}
- Regarding your BC post, I doubt MediaWiki's learning curve is much to blame for the state of NW. There are after all very active wikis about Thomas the Tank Engine and every other trivial subject, and our old WordPress is even deader than this wiki. There just aren't many people who have the stamina to contribute on any platform in this cultural climate.