Skip to content

User talk:Patrick Tufts/Nov 2003

From the Quicksilver Metaweb.

< User talk:Patrick Tufts Archive of topics up to Nov 2003 from Patrick Tufts' User Talk page. The threads on this page are inactive. If you see something here that you would like to bring up, go to User talk:Patrick Tufts to post your comments. --Pat 12:50, 17 Dec 2003 (PST)

I put some work into the naming conventions page last night, but I'm certain it would benefit from you making another pass, if you have the energy. --Jeremy

Is there a reason you're making top-level pages for some Quicksilver-specific topics, such as Daniel Waterhouse? --Jeremy

Yes. As they are the primary reference point on topics, they should have the simplest link possible. It is fine to put page annotations into specific namespaces, but I believe intermediate pages should be at the top level -- they are the entry points. --Patrick 17:35, 23 Sep 2003 (PDT)

But the topics in and of themselves are specific to the work. Granted, this means that there is minimal confusion in putting e.g. Qwghlm in one place or the other. However, I do think that since it is most meaningful in the context of the work, that's where such topics belong. For example, as I edited them last night, there is a top-level CABAL and also a Quicksilver-level Stephenson:Neal:Quicksilver:CABAL. --Jeremy

P.S. Sorry, I just now saw your comment on my user page.

Sorry my comment was so brief -- I was rushing out the door. Yes, Qwghlm is one example that springs to mind; there is little confusion with that. However, the general idea, in my mind, is that when there are multiple entries on a topic like CABAL, we can then put entries in separate namespaces and create a metaweb:Disambiguation page.

A disambiguation page is a stripped down intermediate page that lists the different topics that a used might mean.

My thinking is that Tom Sawyer can exist in a flat namespace, and this matches how users will tend to link. It results in simpler links that users don't then have to go to great lengths to make readable. And if we ever have to move it to Twain:Mark:Adventures of Tom Sawyer:Tom Sawyer (perhaps to distinguish him from a real person) as long as we create a disambiguation page at Tom Sawyer, the old links will still work. --Patrick 01:30, 24 Sep 2003 (PDT)

Is this wiki software downloadable?

Yes. I'll add this to the metaweb:FAQ. --Patrick 01:43, 24 Sep 2003 (PDT)

Thanks for the hello. I have to say that, unfortunately, this site is far, far from ready for serving the NS's goal. The interface needs a lot of differentiation from the Wikipedia specific interface.

Firstly, the naming of entries should be entirely automagical. That would be a start. Unfortunately I don't have the time/energy to deal with this right now (and I'd be a lot more motivated to do something if the code was Perl not PHP) but possibly when space opens up (and I finish hacking through QS...) --The Cunctator

I agree about the UI. We've been busy getting the software and site up and have started to discuss UI changes. Automagically dealing with namespaces and authorship are perhaps the two top issues right now (and namespaces here are user-defined and so are different than the Wikipedia/Mediawiki hard-coded categories used to distinguish Talk pages from entries. --Pat 14:43, 8 Oct 2003 (PDT)

As I've started to sprinkle in comments elsewhere, I suspect you'd be best served starting from the Everything2 or multi-author blog metaphor. Though e2 is pretty flat. Definitely want to work from the goal of creating the perfect annotation site. I think having that as the central design goal will allow matters to resolve themselves happily. Though, admittedly, there's still plenty of work to be done.-The Cunctator 15:41, 8 Oct 2003 (PDT)

Multi-author blogs have many serious problems. Among them, no inline threading, making it quite hard for a reader to see everything on one point by skimming. THey are held hostage to contributors' sometimes-bad editorial judgement about what topics to cram together. Metaweb:refactoring must work down to the verb phrase or noun phrase. Request both of you review Metaweb:Etiquette, a draft to describe the conventions in one place.

Is there an thoughtful indexing system? On the level of Main Character ACTS versus our well intentioned commentary upon deeds and characters? Sparky 23:43, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

Thoughtful indexing, as you suggest, consists of organizing around stories - these could be fictional characters. Consider this story and this one as two good examples of stories about user needs that can drive development work of a content base.

Seems workable, a clue as to the index I envision might be the information from Neal Stephenson himself presented on the pages of the book. The headers on the right hand pages of Quicksilver inform without being spoilers save for the instant when someone's sick bed becomes their deathbed. Sparky 01:12, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

As for software, a wikitext standard and the Simple Ideology of Wikitax], expressed in new software, is the only real answer. Blogs are a very big step backwards.

If you're going to "add links, remove others", it becomes necessary to have some statement of Metaweb:scope which states what will and won't be covered. Even just an idea of the total size (say 10,000 vs. 100,000 articles, would suggest 10x more open links would be tolerable if we aim at the latter).

Patrick? Is there a problem with graphics loading and not loading? The tiny Quicksilver graphic has a legend that says: sitesubtitle in its place ... Sparky 04:36, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

You mean the graphic that appears in the upper left corner of each page, right? I didn't see this, but now that I'm looking at it, it seems to be OK. --Pat 20:39, 14 Nov 2003 (PST)

Gad - the Main Page has gone nuts! The missing graphic could be a browser related issue. I see it in Netscape but not in IE or Safari. I use a 12" G4 PowerBook. There's been a weird error message on all day yesterday. Sparky 21:10, 14 Nov 2003 (PST)

The server was acting up today but was back on its feet by ~7pm PST. You might need to "force reload" to get the updated page. In Mozilla, you hold down the shift key while clicking on the reload button. I think there's a similar procedure for IE. --Pat 21:26, 14 Nov 2003 (PST)

  • Magic! I'm in Japan - so I'm 16 hours in the future as it were... :) Thanks