• Wiki Discussion
• Post formating

I'm kind of annoyed with the current post format, it gets messy with volume. So I'm considering this formating:

Code:

|| WikiName [[BR]] @DATE_alias@ || Post goes here ||

ReenenLaurie 2004-08-13: @DATE_alias@ did nothing for me. I used @''''''USER@ [[BR]] @''''''DATE@ (without the spaces) to get the postname and date which is now. I also used a space in front of my reply to indent it. This is to indicate a reply to SoulWynd's post (or whatever you'd like to call it).

SoulWynd 2004-08-13: It's actualy a @DATE@ flag. I added the _alias because the wiki interprets it inside the code marks, but wont interpret anything you do to break the alias

ReenenLaurie 2004-08-13: Why does yours get to display the @ DATE@ right, and mine not? What am I doing wrong? Or, how'd you do that?

Comments?

SoulWynd 2004-08-12: The alias is read even while inside the literal area. Gotta fix that eventualy. Anyway, I like that kind of formating, but I guess that's just me... :p

Give it a try anyway

Yeah, found another problem with it, it doesn't read multiple lines :p

MayLith: The wiki is not the forum.

GregSweetman: I would agree. 'Chatter' should not last on a wiki. Once a decision has been made, changes get updated and the chatter gets removed. The forum is a better place to have conversations.

MayLith: Also (and case in point) you can literally be interrupted in mid-thought. I'd done a quick save, planning on expounding, and then I got distracted and Greg got the lock on this page. Of course, I don't mind -- that's how the wiki works -- but that type of thing would bollix up any dated/timed threaded arrangement.

Furthermore, by the nature of the wiki, chatter is not a linear process. See Cirad for an example. People have gone back in and commented on others' comments, in some cases without signing. That's normal for a wiki.

The only place for permanent assignments of name and date on the wiki, IMHO, are places such as the ChangeLog. I've dated some my own threads over on WikiSuggestions, but really that's probably not necessary.

I do like the idea of an entire thread having a 'last changed' date, just so you have some idea of how old it is, and some are working on a macro for that. OTOH, there is a function to find the oldest threads. It would probably be useful to remind everyone to state which version of the game they are playing in each thread they create, if it's relevant.

Utilizing names on a wiki (which AFAIK is unusual) is useful only when it has some meaning. For example, I want to know who made a comment on my character, or who responded to my bug report, etc, so that I can follow up with them later. There is also an added aspect to it, since I sometimes (for example) PM Massimiliano Marangio over on the forum in response to an issue here on the wiki.

The one problem I've noticed now that volume is picking up is that it is difficult to quickly see/differentiate a new post by someone who has not yet established a homepage on the wiki, since their name isn't highlighted. That's easily corrected by either a) creating a homepage for yourself or b) utilizing horizontal bars to offset your own posts, or c) both.

NeilStevens: To address many points raised here:

I suggest that abusing tables for chatter is a poor idea that diminishes the wiki as a whole. Let's stick to logical markup, please.

The existance or non-existance of a forum has no relevance to a discussion of wiki policy, though. In particular, the ToME forum and the ToME wiki are two independent entities. The ToME wiki will not be diminished because some ToME forum readers decide they want to relegate the wiki to a copy of the documentation.

Don't count on last changed working. It breaks with cached pages.

Chatter is definitely welcome on this wiki. If you want a cold, unfriendly, chatter-free wiki, please try Wikipedia.

MayLith: Neil: If you were addressing my comments, I did not intend to imply diminishing of the wiki in any sense. I was simply stating one circumstance under which I'd want to know who'd made a posting. No one here has stated that they want to relegate the wiki to a copy of the documentation. Also, I feel that the preponderance of == Chatter == sections on many pages of this wiki shows that chatter is certainly welcome.

NeilStevens: It was GregSweetman's comment I was addressing on that point.

SoulWynd: After reading all the posts, well, this is a community forum essencially. Even if focused on creating web pages, it is still a community forum and as such, it will have chatter. I don't see how changing the way you post on the wiki would diminish it's content. Several people post in diferent ways when starting a chatter or when replying to someone. My intent was to give an idea to a better format for the posts. The way we do it right now tends to become confusing/messy as the chatter gets bigger. Sometimes it is hard to find out what's new without searching the whole page or using the diff action... Anyway, it was just an idea.

ReenenLaurie 2008-08-30: I thought that this post was for the reply / add post macros to be created. I think this is a neat way to do it, and for a macro to create things like this seems 1) macro'ish (which can be good or bad), but the point is, the formating can be changed later on. I feel however that you should still reply to someone's post underneath his post, and not at the end of the whole chatter. And using the diff function is very much part of using the wiki. If we create a chatter macro sometime, I wouldn't mind it looking like this.

SoulWynd 2004-08-13: I've created it already, but NeilStevens wants it in patch format. I'm too lazy to do it manualy and I have no program here to do it for me >.>

But yes, this would look nice for an automatic post. I could make it convert returns into [[BR]] flags . The problem is that certain wiki features would definately not work inside the table ...

Inline code works, but multiple line code wont

NeilStevens: I said I prefer it in a GNU Arch changeset, but a patch would be fine.

I have gotten rid of the tables in the chatter of this thread for two reasons: Tables are a harmful idea for this and I want to show an alternative. I will be removing chatter tables anywhere I see them.

On most issues, I'm content to sit back and see what decisions are made. I don't want to be the final authority on every issue because I want a sense of community to form here. On the matter of tables for chatter I'm making an exception, though. I won't have tables abused here. I won't have wiki markup abused. The more abuse we have, the harder it'll be to grow and improve the wiki later.

Improvements to the look of the site will go in CSS, not in hard-coded markup.

MayLith 2004-08-13 23:32:04: I agree completely regarding the tables, Neil. (My instinct was to get rid of them the second I first saw them, but I wanted to give others a chance for input.)

I do like bolding the usernames; they are much easier to see that way, especially for those users who do not have a homepage. Regarding adding the date, too: Yes, but you probably should use @TIME@ instead, because some of us post rather frequently. Either that, or leave the date off and just use the diff function.

Idea: How about creating a macro (@POST@, or some such) that lists both your username and the date(and/or time) in bold? That'd be nifty, imho. Identical to @SIG@, except without the '---' and bolded.

NeilStevens: I wasn't aware that that kind of macro existed. That'd be handy indeed.

SoulWynd: That's an alias and not a macro. I still don't see how using tables can be 'abusing'. Your wiki, your decision. *shrugs* ... Anyway, I could change the SIG alias or code one to do what you want.

MayLith: Neil: There's a number of them. Darned if I remember where I found it -- another wiki, I think. I'll try to dig find it. (And thanks, SoulWynd -- I couldn't remember what they were called.)

SoulWynd The Bold: No prob. They can be found here -> HelpOnPageCreation ...

MayLith: /me sighs... I just blew at least an hour searching, and just found it. You beat me to it. BTW, it's referred to as 'variable substitution', not aliasing.

SoulWynd, The Bold once, Bold twice: <- I'm having fun, sorry... I apologize, I forgot it was called variable substitution here. That's aliasing anyway

MayLith: No, not really. Added variable substitutions to SyntaxReference.

ReenenLaurie: I'd *love* a @ POST@ alias/variable substitution. It should write Bold, datetime, and then : or maybe not the :. Just used the @ SIG@ one on a post somewhere... and realised, it should rather be DateTime '''USER''' : as the : after the time looks silly.

Could someone please implement it?

MayLith: I don't like the idea of the time coming first -- I think it might end up being very difficult to skim. There's a way to get around the colon problem, though. Compare these:

1. MayLith 2004-08-16 15:18:44: blah blah blah

2. MayLith 2004-08-16 15:18:44: blah blah blah

3. MayLith 2004-08-16 15:18:44 : blah blah blah

I agree with you about Version 1 looking funny, but Version 2 looks okay to me (your mileage may vary) and Version 3 is even better. So IMHO, @POST@ should be "Bold Username @ TIME@ Unbold Space Colon Space". (The last space for convenience.)

SoulWynd: I could do that, but eh... My patience has blown up yesterday. Maybe in a week if nobody does it and things get nicer.

ReenenLaurie: If I knew how I'd do it immediately. But I have a feeling I'll need some ACLs. A genuine macro could also work. [[Post()]]. Whatever way...

NeilStevens: Why do we want to clutter the discussion with dates all over the place? How often is that going to be important, and when it is important why won't the page change information be sufficient? These are meant as serious discussion-provoking questions here.

GregSweetman: I would agree with NeilStevens on this point. I don't think edit-dates in the post itself add anything at all to the edits. Does it really take a lot of time to sign your posts by hand? I know I do every time

ReenenLaurie:

1. I guess we don't really want to clutter discussion with dates.
2. It won't be important very often, and mostly page change info would be sufficient.

However, I think that it's a thing that will make the wiki more accessible to people who are not very computer literate. Adding dates to it, well, I guess not essential, but it's nice to see the progression without having to diff a page. Otherwise _{@ DATE@} could work too.