Plastic Tub:Community Portal
From Plastic Tub
| Revision as of 22:37, 21 Oct 2004 Undule (Talk | contribs) ← Go to previous diff |
Revision as of 01:51, 22 Oct 2004 Sven (Talk | contribs) Go to next diff → |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| # Stylistic consistency -- main sections shouldn't read like ''Soluble Fish'' or ''Et Tu, Babe'' -- that sort of gaffing belongs in subsections. (I want to amend this thought -- most entries are perfect in this sense. My point is only the keep in the mind the encyopledist's hand.) | # Stylistic consistency -- main sections shouldn't read like ''Soluble Fish'' or ''Et Tu, Babe'' -- that sort of gaffing belongs in subsections. (I want to amend this thought -- most entries are perfect in this sense. My point is only the keep in the mind the encyopledist's hand.) | ||
| # The front page needs to be entirely reworked -- it should be a proper splash page, in the marvel comic sense, rather that a staid listing. | # The front page needs to be entirely reworked -- it should be a proper splash page, in the marvel comic sense, rather that a staid listing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hello Sven here. I just tubbed in tonight and have to say yuor discussion will save me lots of unnecasary questions. I have to say the main reason i added the last few people was because we had no one whos nwme bgan with an L so i kinda did it for alpabetation's sake. Nuff Said bout my PShop but i was really just funnin and learnin. I did not expect them to last anyway. phone wont stop be bac | ||
| == Some Stuff == | == Some Stuff == | ||
Revision as of 01:51, 22 Oct 2004
| Table of contents |
Desiderata
desderita looks way cool
how does it look with several entries? I am learning how to get images up. hurray. hows about my Photoshop job, shabby? yes. mission accomplished ? yes sir what next? you tell me. keep spermentin' ya hear
- i think that image needs to be fixed
- yeah it i am a bit rusty if i was ever oxegenated anyway. that face gen stuff is fun. I was really just trying to learn the code stuff. that code to the Desderita sidebar stuff looks pretty meaty. did you find it difficult?
- I assume you're being sarcastic. At any rate, I did the Addisson entry as well. I rather like how it cuts up the page, particularly if the desiderata section was fat. It only requires putting in an html table. On further thought, it would be amusing to use this desiderata section to have a small portrait of every guy at the top, like the sidebar functioned like the back of a sports trading card.
- Adkins here. Yeah. I like the Desiderata sidebar. It gives the pages a better look. More dynamic. (yow, I'm an art critic all of a sudden) Anyway, adding a pic could be cool too; I'd like to see it tested out, because it looks pretty cool now as well. Trading Cards? Hell yeah....love to see that idea. Get a pack of five in a foil wrapper! With gum. That is totally do-able.
The recent spate of image-adding is really cool, btw. Nice work chums. Any final words on how to categorize pubs and other media? I'm game for anything, really, as long as we get to it.
As you know, we do a lot of cruising for sp errors etc and I've seen a few regulars we should keep an eye on before hitting the edit button. Not to be a dick but just for future reference and we'll save ourselves some time. Desiderata. Look at the top of this section and you'll see what I mean. Thier should be "their." Immediatly retains the e: "Immediately." Thurstenwell could always be an alternate spelling, but on his page he's "Thurstunwell." Just some things I've corrected a few times. Hope I'm not out of line.
- Tim here. I don't think you're out of line with the spelling stuff, btw, I'll keep that in mind. Their has always been my achilles belly. As for the category question on pubs, I'm ok with Extant Works, though I'll probably never give up my fondness for the more plodding Works in Extent -- slug in whichever you think is best, I'm cool with that. The imagery is so-so -- I must confess to being the authoritarian editor in this matter, I don't think the last few can stand. Using AP photos is a no-no, and the pshops for Tommy and Nevid are somewhat lackadaise and need eventually to be replaced. What do you think, Adkins, of the timeline and the eventual lockdown of material? Also, are you indeed going to put up the Greenbook?
- Whew. I didn't want to come across self-righteous on the spelling thing. Mormo knows I'm just as guilty. Also, I'll start on "Extant Works" then. Yeah, those Nevid and Tommy photos need some work. They're funny as hell but too obviously...false. :) Some obsfucation may do them good. I'm more stoked to see more images than the images themselves, but you're right to be authoritarian: Quality is imperative. I cut the AP photo. I'm glad you called that out because I had to check the AP site and was pretty sure I was in the wrong. Too bad cuz that photo is awesome. Perhaps we can find some public domain stuff? The timeline would be a very useful tool, whether in text or (better) graphic form. It would help us to square all dates and to help us link personages. For example, Attucks needs to be linked to Morris and Kook, but could also be involved with Slippers and Biberoni. By clumping the names together we could have easy access to all in their proper time for making accurate Associations date-wise and also flesh out relationships vis a vis common events and historical context. I recoil timidly but really it wouldn't be so tough. How do you think a timeline would work best?
Greenbook will be up, but it's still got a good chunk in analog form to be recorded. Granted, your idea of scanning pages would be best but a) that's a long haul and b) I don't know if I want to see my sub-mental scrawl on display to the world. hehe. Overall, though, what's your take on the overall development of the Tub? I'm pretty much stoked but feel a need to "infill" some of the basic personages, especially to give them their due. There are now more post-Tub personages than Primer personages, who I'd like to see stand out more, those who would qualify as members of the AA in the terms you described a bit ago. There are also a host of concepts and ideas which need to be explained once and for all. I really don't feel I'm the best qulified and would like to see you and Sven tackle that. I feel more comfortable with anecdotes and biography. But above and beyond I'm pretty proud of this here Tub. I'm guaranteed chuckles and even guffaws each time I read the new stuff. (pats self on back)
- I rather like the Tub's current incarnation with but a few reservations -- the main being what you've mentioned, the paucity of information in regards to the Core Membership. That and the lack of depth; the jokiness is fine and good, but it loses itself in whimsy, there is no effective counterpoint. If The Tub continues on it's present course without deviation, it'll be little more than a collection of interlinked gags and rim-shots. So then, while I like what's happened tremendously, in my opinion a shift is needed. With this is in mind I propose the following:
- Emphasis on formatting, with an eye towards greater complexity and increased intercontexuality. For instance, this would include little asides, "info-slugs", a sidebar, increased pictoral content and the homogeneity of the current subsection structures, etc.
- A lock-down on new entries, or in the very least, a severe restriction on such. This would be in order to focus more attention on the short, underveloped entries. This needn't preclude whimsical additions, however -- one simply works new material into existing structures, the trick is find the wiggle room for insertion. This could be perfect for a Desiderata sidebar, like the indian bandit guy could easily be a sidebar on Ritual Shoplifting, Gnomes, etc.
- Stylistic consistency -- main sections shouldn't read like Soluble Fish or Et Tu, Babe -- that sort of gaffing belongs in subsections. (I want to amend this thought -- most entries are perfect in this sense. My point is only the keep in the mind the encyopledist's hand.)
- The front page needs to be entirely reworked -- it should be a proper splash page, in the marvel comic sense, rather that a staid listing.
Hello Sven here. I just tubbed in tonight and have to say yuor discussion will save me lots of unnecasary questions. I have to say the main reason i added the last few people was because we had no one whos nwme bgan with an L so i kinda did it for alpabetation's sake. Nuff Said bout my PShop but i was really just funnin and learnin. I did not expect them to last anyway. phone wont stop be bac
Some Stuff
What do you guys think of this formatting?
big problem
- Hoho, point taken! I don't think the quote is entirely incorrect, because in the Tub we speak of AA ideas and personalities, divisions, etc; but never the The AA itself as a formal organization. It's not, for example, in the "groups" category (yet). Like we could say Reticent 27 is the official mouthpiece of the AA, but isn't it the magazine itself which is an organization, as well as the various clubs, etc., but no real center? ....I concede however, that certain elements become meaningless without the assumption of a core, such as the conferences. I propose a more detailed development of this history. At what point was the AA in fact formed after Adid and Addisson began to promulgate their ideas in magazine form? The Tub is so far silent on this point, which ceases to be unusual if you view the AA in the light presented in the quote.
To be honest though, I hesitated to add that bit and wasn't really happy with the way it came out, so again, your point is well-taken and the paragraph needs to be either removed, modified or worked into an amusing debate. One academic camp goes one way, another goes another....
- Yes, I'm with you on this one. Some knuckin' down must occur on this matter. A timeline should also be created. We can do nothing but plod on, I suppose, though we could make a more concerted effort to flesh out the fundamental concepts. I have a hard time elucidating them in print, however, despite my ability to vocalize it. It's hard work. 8)
found this on the AA entry:
- Although we speak of "The AA" and "AA'ers," it should be noted that "AA" has never represented any formally chartered or established group as such, but a group of individuals and groups so-chartered, bound together in a loose affiliation based on shared ideals and cameraderie.
This is entirely incorrect. Without proper understanding of this point, the tub seems worhtless. There is and was a group of affiliated members who are the AA. Without such, every reference point for the tubopedia is dries up and renders all else pap-less and shite.
Just sayin'.
as per the below, no, no category, but it would be great to add a list of phrases for a style guide
Late
including:
- it is said that
- it is thought that
Yeah, no category necessary but it would be amusing to extrapolate on the "stock-phrases" in the Style Guide we need to create....
I just wrote this i wonder if phrases like "a kind of" could somehow be tagged -- and thought would be it be:
- helpful
- amusing
- proper
to link such word-jinks to a category? Something like Turns of Phrase? In this category we could put stuff like:
- researchers say
- studies show
- though thought otherwise
- by means of
- moving in tandem with
- understood as
- thusly
- etc
Categories
- Tim, I could vote on that if we modified it to Extant Works or Works Extant. Then, for the sake of accuracy, we could pop in a subcat of Lost Works when appropriate. What do you think?
- Works Extant, eh? I confess to preferring the "in" portion -- it strikes me as more deliberately academic. Of the two you suggest, Extant Works is the better.
Works in Extentgets my vote on further thinking. i printed out all the personage pages before i left work and they look rather academic, and bad ass although someof the lighter entries look a little unbalanced, the more robust pages look incredible and the format really makes them look cohesive and dare i say printready?.There was a 65 pages and they look like they were won to be a fatass manuscript. I promptly put them in a folder and hid them. And I am guilty of fudgin the categories crap and thought that i undid it properly but i have too many excuses already.
A few things on category creation. Please don't create a category page that is essentially a content page -- this defeats the purpose. If a category is specific enough to be a single entry it shouldn't be a category. I have changed feast day into feasts and high days and moved it to an appropriate subcategory within ritual and ceremony.
One creates a subcategory by simply putting a link to it on the page in question. For instance, putting category:foibles' onto a page on editing. This category of course would not exist as such -- at least until you click on the lick at the bottom. This would bring you to the actual categor:foibles page. It is on this page where you would slug in the category in which you want to place foibles. - -for instance, category:Follies. thus, when you go to the Follies category page, you would see foibles as a subcategory.
On the subject of Publications, I'm still leaning towards Works in Extent -- because it has a the academicist tone I like in the encylcopedic elements of the tub and it covers all art work, not only written material. I'm sure there's a better suggestion. Known Works doesn't do it for me, primarily because we're already using it as a subsection title.
A few more suggestions:
Corpus
Complete Works
Aggregate Accomplishments
I dono.
Another Query
What do guys think about renaming the category Publications as Works in Extent, or something thereof, perhaps even, as Vogeler suggests -- bibliography?
The problem, I think, arises from categorizing songs, ballet and film in publications. Thoughts? The category is small enough now to go in an change shit withoug much fuss -- so we should settle on it.
- Yeah, I held off on adding publications to many things because of that reason. I suggest "Known Works" or better, Sven's suggestion. "Bibliography" seems the logical choice, as it is all all-encompassing and accurate.
- I think that we should go with "Extrapolation" as a subhead.
- Finally, take a look at watermelon, where I quoted a news article. This doesn't seem to be "Usage" as i've labelled it, but something else; What do you think of creating a "Sightings" subhead where we can stick quotes from the "real world" which use the word in an amusing or startling context?
And fucking-a(a)! What a flurry you've all been up to. Great stuff!
- Coolio on the extrapolation. But isn't bibliography specific to books? Or . .?
- Shit, you're right! Oops, my goof. "Works Cited" is a bit much...."Archives"...."Mediatheque and Library"...."Library"? "Known Works" Maybe subcategories is it: Sound Recordings, Film and Video, Books, Magazines, Journals, Newspapers.....no, too many possibilities...what about "Publications & Multimedia"? Library might be good....Media Lab? It's actually a rather tough nut to crack....
A Query
What do you guys think of the Extrapolation subsection? I rather like it as a method of furthering comment outside the main thrust of an entry, particularly in the case of the glossary. Now, it is a mix of:
Further Extrapolation
(which is redundant)
and simply,
Extrapolation
Should we go with the latter or dream up another term for this substructure?
I'm gonna create a glossary category and begin popping stuff in. It's a rather extensive list; I'm starting at the top....
- UPDATE: OK, all items are in the glossary category from the original page. Pretty much all the New pages need definitions. They only exist now because they have the category link.
Categories
Ok so all the personages should be properly categorized at this point. Next up should probably be works? Any thoughts?
- I would say yes to that. We've already got a publications category started. Also, a groups category includiong the leagues, scouts etc. Maybe definitions? After groups and works I'm not sure what categories to create....
Style guide suggestions
- I created the category "publications" which may need to be similarly subdivided by groups pro and anti aa or into journals, books, newspapers etc.
- Query: Are subsections to be demarcated with one line or two?
Ok, gang, I've added a category called personages. The code for this, to be added at the top of the page, is [[Category:Personages]]
This will slug it into a neat little package, automatically alphabetized. This means we don't have to manually add jack shit when we dream up some new entity. Of course, this goes for all categorizations to be made in the future. So, all personages need this code added to them and then we can just link off the front page directly to the category.
- I would add, however, that a subcategory is probably needed -- such as Second Generation, or , Latter-Day -- or in the very least, we could break them down as Poobs, Clampes, Chimps, Honeybees, Accidentalists, etc etc etc. Thoughts?
Also, I've started doing the See Also section like this:
See Also
Additionally, I've been doing Desiderata with a slight indent, accomplished like so:
Desiderata
- He has sandwiches in all of pockets.
The code for which is just a colon and a space.
1. I think all new pages should include at least one link to an active page, i.e. no dead ends. I think it improves flow and causes us to stretch, thus fleshing out the story with anecdotes, etc. An entry on "organ grinders" would inevitable involve Flintrock's riotous "lost-weekend" in Mexico City, 1955, thus serving both to facilitate the flow of traffic with a relevant link and create yet another bit of Flintrock's history. He was there to study Mayan petroglyphs and fuck for a dollar and a ten cent beer etc. He met Burroughs in a Bar and....
- I totally agree and have been trying to do this but one can always go further.
2. I wonder if we shouldn't comingle the quotes and the glossary sections? They seem to overlap a great deal and it would make for fatter, more dense reading. It's a bloaty category to be separate anyway.
3. I agree. Bring the quotes and glossary section together and create a "Works" section with a list of all the texts from films, peoms, plays etc.
Discussion relating to Plastic Tub development.
- Ok, the pre tag won't let you do italics or bold, etc. So I did Stimes: A Remembrance Based On Association, Not Truth, Thus True.
with a different kind of format. Perhaps the pre tag should be dropped. (doh!) Formatting poetry in wiki is pain in the ass.
- Ok, I put up a text tonight using the _pre_ tag. Dreams of a False Nose -- you can look at how it was done, easy peasy. The pre tag gives it a dashed box, typewriter font and preserves the original formatting. Cut and paste, basically. I suggest we do all our 'known works' like this.
- Slight? You talkin' bout the style guide thing or did I miss sumpin? Naw man, tis well rec'd on my end (see vapslav post for further details)
- Hey gang, not intending to slight anyone if that is how it came off with my (looking for word..) Stupid and ill-prepared Post to Vaporslave. I cannot thank you guys enough for all the spelling corrections and format,link repair. Not to mention the inspiration. That initial blast was exhausting and I feel I may need to fuel up again lest i blow a block and bring down a public mailbox(W.A.S.T.E.). Cant wait to discuss the places this thing should go. count me in.
