Do as you please.
Review and edit current articles?
Flesh out Earhart/Noonan stubs?
Put your own research on the wiki?
Make connections with classic pages?
Digest material from those pages in relevant articles on the wiki?
It all needs doing. You get to pick what you think is fun and worthwhile.
Moleski 18:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's all? :) Garman 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Marty, going over the edit history of this wiki, I had not a clue you'd done so much work here. Wow! Garman 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words.
I've been using MediaWiki for ... 4 weeks to the day. I did a page or two in draft on Wikipedia (not suitable for publication, I decided) and have corrected a handful of typos over the years.
I'm willing to learn from you about the right principles for photo sizing. I'm just trying to weave the classic site and the wiki together. I don't have a style sheet.
In the case of the construction photo, the thumbnail seemed too small to me. It's really relevant to the article--I never imagined that the base was so big!
The map thumbnail, on the other hand, doesn't seem as central to the article.
Nutiran has a big picture.
Sextant box found on Nikumaroro has small pictures.
Maps of Nikumaroro has big pictures.
[[Image:Example.jpg|frame|300px|center]] seems not to work. That's why I've been using centered tables to get the effect. We're using 1.13.x.x. I saw that there was a 1.14 beta RC available. It might implement all the image handling promised in the MediaWiki support pages.
Moleski 21:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I do understand! First, whatever size/way is settled on should, I would think, very likely be swayed by input from Pat and Ric along with what other TIGHAR editors think.
- This said, there are reasons why one might not want to lay the "look and feel" of a static website onto a wiki. First, a wiki is "dynamically" edited, the layout is going to get shifted and nudged about quite a lot, hence simplicity can be very helpful. Second, wikis tend to be taken as more "inter-operable" than standard websites: These days, users have many and sundry display sizes. Large, centered images will often not fit onto a screen or may otherwise upset the reader's flow.
- Moreover, centered images do not "wrap" the text. With careful layout, this can be ok and worthwhile, but more often, a lack of text wrapping can easily lead to a less reader-friendly page.
- The standard is to "thumbnail" the image at the right of the page with this code:
[[Image:snap.png|thumb|this is my caption]]
- If there are lots of images, some can be staggered on the left like this:
[[Image:snap.png|left|thumb|this is my caption]]
- Both of these will wrap the text seamlessly.
- At first, the notion of having smaller images all the same size on a page can seem unsettling to someone thinking in terms of an editorially locked website along with the strong impact and drama a big photo can have. However, users of wiki interfaces know (or very quickly learn) they have only to click on the image to see it in its full size. This isn't "more fit or more helpful" than a standard website using a more magazine like layout, which can be wonderful (I do this on my own websites), but has to do with how wikis have developed and how they are most often used. Lastly, keeping to a standard layout format on each page makes things much easier for both editors and readers and tends to draw them more deeply into the content. So, anything goes as to how a wiki might be layed out, but there are reasons why sticking to some ways of doing things can make using a wiki more rewarding.
- Oh, one more thing, to stir up thinking... why try to re-weave the classic TIGHAR site, which is so cool as it is, into a "another version" of its own self on Ameliapedia, which could skirt the very benefits of having a wiki? If users want the "classic" TIGHAR web experience (which I also like very much), it's there for them.
- What do you think? Garman 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the insight!
- 2. It's easier to get folks cooperating on the wiki. The website (apart from the Forum) is essentially a one-woman show. The wiki will allow lots more TIGHAR researchers to share what they've found. See, for example, Bones II and the articles that Tom King put up (they're not on the classic site). The intra-wiki links make the information in the wiki more accessible, too.
- 3. I'd rather go at a reworking of the information that leaves the classic site untouched for those who prefer the classic site. No need to rile the natives. I think the project is worth the time I have and will invest in it because, as Siddhartha said to Mara, "Some will understand." :o)
- Moleski 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Galleries are wonderful! They very much fit the clickable image notion of a wiki. I forgot to say, any logged in user can change the default size of thumbnail they see (without changing anyone else's default size) in their user preferences. Some readers will already be familiar with this option, from having used other wikis.
- Yes, the classic site is its own world (articles here can link to it and one day, I glark, it will very likely link over here). I see nothing untowards about bringing over lots of information from the classic TIGHAR site, as TIGHAR editors along with Pat and Ric may see fit over time. The classic site does what it does in a helpful way, the wiki will do what it does in a helpful way and the two can easily thrive together. As you hint, as this Ameliapedia grows, folks will come to understand it more: Both will likely be enhanced by this, yet each will/should stand on their own. Garman 02:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Help! I've been refactored! :-O
- And hit my first edit conflict. WHEE! It's great not to be the only one here. Thanks!
- Refactoring is what I'm doing to the TIGHAR website--without altering it. See signal strength. There is a huge wealth of information scattered on the TIGHAR website that can be re-organized and synthesized. So the wiki allows accumulation of new information while also refactoring information already acquired.
- Moleski 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. The presentation of information has much sway on how that information is understood and learned. The classic site will always have its lasting strengths, meanwhile the wiki will also have its many and sundry strengths, which is why having both is cool and yep, the pith of a wiki is the taking in of new information whilst building on the bones of the old (and heh heh... sometimes refactorin' them bones, too :) Garman 02:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)