Plastic Tub:Community Portal
From Plastic Tub
| Revision as of 00:06, 11 Oct 2004 The citizen (Talk | contribs) ← Go to previous diff |
Revision as of 00:07, 11 Oct 2004 The citizen (Talk | contribs) Go to next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| + | == A Query == | ||
| - | == Further Extrapolation == | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| - | (which is redundant) | + | 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, | and simply, | ||
| - | + | Extrapolation. | |
| - | == Extrapolation == | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ---- | + | |
| - | + | ||
| Should we go with the latter or dream up another term for this substructure? | Should we go with the latter or dream up another term for this substructure? | ||
| - | |||
| - | == Extrapolation == | ||
| - | |||
| - | ---- | ||
| - | |||
| - | * on this note, the Desiderata subsection is distinguished from Extrapolation, yes? Desiderata is like the triva section -- I was picturing Extrapoloation as somewhere between ''Usage'' and ''Desiderata''. | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 00:07, 11 Oct 2004
| Table of contents |
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.
