Talk:Page Building Help

From Math Images

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Useful Image Sites

Useful Image Sites is a bit of a pain to work with -- you have to click a lot of links and wade through kind of meaningless information to get to any given page. I'm worried it will be a turn-off. -Abram, 12/14

[ I started a] Proposed Useful Image Sites [but discovered that the "pain to work with" aspect extends to most of the page. I could go through and remove a bunch of the unnecessary stuff and just keep what seems good. What do you think? Nice to have some image lists. Should also make it easier to add to and less formal.]

Having an image list seems like a good idea. It may make sense to create a short-ish easily used list and see if it gets used before fussing with the whole thing.
It may also help to rewrite "I'm not thrilled..." at the beginning without "I", because it makes it sound like somebody's personal project. Also, I have no idea what "Don't Know" means as a category heading: is it topics we don't know about, images that don't fit neatly into any of the other categories...
-Abram 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

[The "I" stuff was just addressed to you, Abram. No thought of having it on the public page. How 'bout this for the Useful Image Sites: Put up the ancient painful version along with a note: "If you feel the need for this page and find it isn't working for you, please let us know." Then we can redo if seriously needed. I think we should have a prominent place on the page for folks to paste neat sources they find without all the painful machinery, too.]

Pages needing basic explanations, advanced explanations, and needing work are inaccurate or not up to date

I think we should keep Existing pages needing work and explain that it's a bit out of date and that we hope to use it to point folks (sometimes outside folks) in a direction they could help.

That makes sense. I'd like to think about ways to get the pages that are badly out of date shunted to a slightly less central location, just because it would be nice if people could know that everything at the main help page, at least, is well-developed.
-Abram 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
[Good. We need an acceptable name for this section, but it makes sense to me to have things badly in need of further work put in one place. Other special collections we should have?]

Are there now existing Pages Needing Basic Level Explanations and Pages Needing More Mathematical Explanations? I've forgotten where they are.

Yes, the Community Portal has a link to "Images needing content", which in turn links to these pages. Some of the pages listed as needing basic level explanations actually need them. Most of the pages on this list, however, are just stubs (i.e. just a main image and nothing else).
Another thing making these pages confusing is that the pages are listed by name of page, not name of main image, but the listed author is the image author. Changing "author" to "main image author" would take care of that problem.
-Abram 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
[Good plan for clarifying "main image author". We should have name of page, too, I guess. Referring to "Images needing content" just in the Community Portal ain't so good. We need to have weak pages and stubs linked to in a couple places where folks might go to look for how they could pitch in.[

I think we should resolve inaccuracies and try to get them up -to-date with the aid of the new partners. GK 1/17

I think there's more to this than just resolving inaccuracies. If we categorize pages by their done-ness and quality in a way that is actually useful to potential contributors, it might look like this:
  1. Really good pages that we want people to use as models (almost all these pages of from S10, with a couple from S09)
  2. Pages that have a lot of content, but that aren't that great (most of the pages from S09, and some of the pages from S10)
  3. Stumps or near stumps: just a main image and at most a few sentences of text (Some come from S09, some seem to come from other places)
  4. Pages with detailed basic explanations but no advanced explanation (which overlap with category 1 or 2 above for the existing content)
  5. Pages with detailed advanced explanations but no basic explanation (which overlap with category 1 or 2 above for the existing content)
It seems like to be useful to contributors, we would want each one of these 5 categories to get its own "List of pages..." page. Does this make sense to you?
The current Pages Needing Basic Explanation seems to include all of category 5, which makes sense, but it also includes all of category 3, and a few pages from category 1 and 2 where basic explanation sections just haven't been correctly labeled as such. There is a similarly confusing story for Pages Needing Advanced Explanations and Existing Pages Needing Work.
-Abram 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

[I think your categories are good. We should make a start of "Pages Needing Improvement" on our Partner Pages, and get partners to contribute pages if we don't finish, and then when appropriate use these "Pages Needing Improvement" with their students.]

Proposed common topics from math courses that students often find hard

Thanks for putting this page on the MI site. I moved this page to Common, hard math topics to shorten the topic. We can also just have the Hard Math miwki page redirect to this page. I've dropped the "Proposed" designation because I've been using that designation to refer to pages that are proposed as major revisions for existing fairly central pages.
-Abram 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

[I don't get the proposed redirect--we want to clear all we need from the MathImagesWiki and have it all on this wiki. G 1/18]

Great, I'm perfectly happy to delete that page on the miwiki completely. I just can't do that, as I don't remember my login information for that wiki. Can you do that?
-Abram 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

[I'll take this on.]

MediaWiki's "Help:Editing" page

In my opinion this is THE number one source for editing help, and I'm not sure about having it the last site mentioned.

I realized that it's more comprehensive than just formatting help, and it does seem extraordinarily useful, so I moved it to general help. I just didn't put it above WikiTricks because we already know that people find the information in WikiTricks really useful very regularly.
-Abram 19:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[Good!]
Personal tools