User talk:SilverStar/Archives2
From FIRSTwiki
You got into RSI? Congratulations. That is an awesome program. Be sure to tell us about your Intel-science-competition-winning project when you get back :) --Max 00:30, 22 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- Welcome Back! You still have to tell us how it went... --Max 00:16, 10 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Hey, SilverStar ... just a tiny request. When adding categories to pages, it would be helpful if you marked it as a minor edit. Otherwise, scanning recent changes can be difficult if flooded with only category changes, and other pages can get lost in the shuffle. (And while I've got your attention ... can you comment on why template links should be used over at FIRSTwiki:Community decisions. The discussion would go better with their "creator's" intent/viewpoint I think.) --Mrawls 12:18, 18 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- I concur. --Astronouth7303
So far as Template:Feature goes, I think it looks better without the header title. The title is supposed to be bolded in the first sentence, anyway (current article doesn't do full title, of course, but that can be worked on or tolerated). However, as a general rule, I think the use of the header is not only unnecessary but aesthetically unpleasing. As I commented, too, wikipedia doesn't do anything like this. Rather than revert edits, perhaps a discussion on why you like it would be in order? (Perhaps you missed my comment in the edit summary box?) I just ask, because if I revert the edit and then you revert it back, we sure aren't getting anywhere, huh? ;) --Mrawls 09:47, 17 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I know you should be bold in editing and everything like that, but I'd appreciate it if you discussed any major changes prior to implementation, especially those involving changes to many pages. Many of the changes you are making will probably be part of FIRSTwiki forever unless a script is written specifically to change them. And since I'm in the criticizing mood :P, please preview (ok so maybe I'm kinda being hypocritical) and please comment edits. Of course, no harsh feelings or anything, please leave the same kinda helpful criticism on my talk page --Max 21:05, 16 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- If you are talking about previewing the Template pages that I made many changes too, I can't do that. If you preview a Template with paramters in links, it gives you garbled HTML. So I have to save it, and look at the template where it is used, like the Village pump. Finally, could you tell me what you mean by "major changes"? --SilverStar (Advay) 21:18, 16 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- About reviewing, I wasn't referring specifically to the template pages. As for major changes, a recent example are the CD and wikipedia link templates. Though I think these templates are probably alright, there are some potential consequences that I imagine you were unaware of. For example, the wikipedia link templates will probably not appear as an InterWiki link to any sort of computer scouring wikis. The reason I mention this is that it is very likely that there will be such computers scanning wikis and using InterWiki links to help better integrate wikis. InterWiki links are more than just shorthand. It may be possible in the future to include external wiki's in what links here or do a number of other useful things with the metadata gleaned from an InterWiki link. As I said, in this case, I think the templates are alright mainly because if there was a need to change back to standard InterWiki links, it would be very easy to convert them automatedly. --Max 21:36, 16 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I asked you before, but it seems to have been lost in some talk page: why do you keep prefixing templates with FIRSTwiki? That seems redundant. What sort of template might we make that isn't "FIRSTwiki"? --Max 20:39, 16 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Things that are specific to FIRSTwiki, like the motor index, or the regional index have FIRSTwiki_ prefixed on to them. Things like Template:disambig and Template:feature which any wiki would have are unprefixed. I'm trying to be consistent, it would be wasted time to go back and replace all FIRSTwiki_ references, right? --SilverStar (Advay) 20:41, 16 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- You're right, it would probably be a waste of time to change all those pages, I just wanted to understand why. --Max 20:53, 16 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Why did you remove the individual team categories? (Category:1257, etc.) I thought they'd be useful to organize the numerous pages specific to a team (two pages per year, robot and results; pages specific to major projects; team member pages etc.) --Max 22:55, 15 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- That would result in a thousand+ categories. Do we want that many categories? --SilverStar (Advay) 23:01, 15 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- I don't see why not. As long as they don't "get in the way" or somehow hurt the wiki. I can imagine it being useful for someone to click on the category link at the bottom of one of a team's pages and quickly getting a list of all pages related to that team. The only other place these categories would be visible is in the master list of categories but I'm not sure if that is such a problem. --Max 23:09, 15 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- It seems like "What links here" would serve the purpose you are describing. --Mrawls 12:20, 18 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I archived my talk pages. User talk:SilverStar/Archives --SilverStar (Advay) 22:30, 15 Jun 2004 (EDT)
