Talk:To do: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
''added one [[User:Scott|Scott]]'' | ''added one [[User:Scott|Scott]]'' | ||
---- | |||
After careful thought, I think categories are going to wind up being concepts, more than groups of persons places and things. fFor instance, One category would link together everything associated with the early syzygy errorlogs. The gatehouse shoe gals, the logs, the people referenced, everything which is referenced by those logs. Then another Category might be everything PCAG related. athletes, announcements, websites, all this. It might consist largely of people, sure. But I think you can see where I'm going. Instead of large abstractions of sections, we should smaller more identifiable concepts as categories. This is not to say we should not continue to examine the use of abstractions. categories of people, and of places, and of things are useful. But probably not where we should divert our efforts. | |||
*[[:Category:Academy]] | |||
**''Or, we can subdivide:'' | |||
**[[:Category:Academy People]] | |||
**[[:Category:Academy Places]] | |||
*[[:Category:Syzygy Errorlogs]] | |||
*[[:Category:Subway]] | |||
*[[:Category:PCAG]] | |||
*[[:Category:Sentinel]] | |||
*[[:Category:Cubism]] | |||
*[[:Category:]] | |||
*[[:Category:]] | |||
*[[:Category:]] | |||
*[[:Category:]] | |||
''I was just noticing as i come up with this, it's more like a dewey decimal system, kinda. Whatever works.'' | |||
[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:35, 4 Aug 2005 (GMT) | |||
---- | |||
---- | |||
| Line 53: | Line 80: | ||
[[whipsmartice.com]] | [[whipsmartice.com]] | ||
These are all the appropriate website entries. most of them are awful. Some don't exist. I'm requesting some fFeedback: Is it actually necesarry to make a wiki entry fFor a webpage fFor a fFeature? http://www.ascendancypoint.com only really talks about the ascendancy point. What could [[ascendancypoint.com]] possibly say that [[Ascendancy Point]] doesn't already? So I ask: do we need pages fFor all websites? | These are all ''(now "Most of)'' the appropriate website entries. most of them are awful. Some don't exist. I'm requesting some fFeedback: Is it actually necesarry to make a wiki entry fFor a webpage fFor a fFeature? http://www.ascendancypoint.com only really talks about the ascendancy point. What could [[ascendancypoint.com]] possibly say that [[Ascendancy Point]] doesn't already? So I ask: do we need pages fFor all websites? | ||
--- [[User:Scott|Scott]] | --- [[User:Scott|Scott]] | ||
---- | |||
With a lack of fFeedback on this topic, I'm taking the issue into my own hands. I've been updating pages as I go, phasing out references to webpage entries. Eventually, I'd like to delete all these topics entirely. [[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:35, 4 Aug 2005 (GMT) | |||
Revision as of 23:35, 4 August 2005
CATEGORIES
(01-JUL-05) One thing I'd like to consider is categories, but I'd like to lay out a basic structure before we actually started sorting.
(It'll also really help with the 'To do' stuff, as we can just add or remove a category tag from a page as it's worked on, instead of having to maintain a wiki page for them.)
For example, for a restaurant in Old Town, the categories would read:
Perplex City | Old Town | Fleet Sreet (or whatever) | Restaurants
Possible categories:
- People & Organizations
- Perplex City Academy
- Seven fFounders
- Government
- Police
- City Council
- Athletics
- Newspaper
- Reconstructionists
- Perplex City Academy
- Places
- Earth
- Perplex City
- all subdivisions
- restaurants, clubs, etc
- Things
- Puzzles
- solved
- unsolved
- Puzzle Cards
- organized by color, type, etc.
- Webpages
These seem to cover it generally, so please add anything you feel has been left out.
added one Scott
After careful thought, I think categories are going to wind up being concepts, more than groups of persons places and things. fFor instance, One category would link together everything associated with the early syzygy errorlogs. The gatehouse shoe gals, the logs, the people referenced, everything which is referenced by those logs. Then another Category might be everything PCAG related. athletes, announcements, websites, all this. It might consist largely of people, sure. But I think you can see where I'm going. Instead of large abstractions of sections, we should smaller more identifiable concepts as categories. This is not to say we should not continue to examine the use of abstractions. categories of people, and of places, and of things are useful. But probably not where we should divert our efforts.
- Category:Academy
- Or, we can subdivide:
- Category:Academy People
- Category:Academy Places
- Category:Syzygy Errorlogs
- Category:Subway
- Category:PCAG
- Category:Sentinel
- Category:Cubism
- [[:Category:]]
- [[:Category:]]
- [[:Category:]]
- [[:Category:]]
I was just noticing as i come up with this, it's more like a dewey decimal system, kinda. Whatever works.
Scott 23:35, 4 Aug 2005 (GMT)
WEBSITE ENTRIES
ascendancypoint.com mindcandydesign.com opendesignagency.com perplexcity.com perplexcityacademy.com perplexcitysentinel.com perplexcitysubway.com quirkyacuity.com salkfamily.com thescarlettkite.com whipsmartice.com
These are all (now "Most of) the appropriate website entries. most of them are awful. Some don't exist. I'm requesting some fFeedback: Is it actually necesarry to make a wiki entry fFor a webpage fFor a fFeature? http://www.ascendancypoint.com only really talks about the ascendancy point. What could ascendancypoint.com possibly say that Ascendancy Point doesn't already? So I ask: do we need pages fFor all websites?
--- Scott
With a lack of fFeedback on this topic, I'm taking the issue into my own hands. I've been updating pages as I go, phasing out references to webpage entries. Eventually, I'd like to delete all these topics entirely. Scott 23:35, 4 Aug 2005 (GMT)
