This page is a part of the Wiki Community set of pages.
Add new proposals and suggestions for the Davis Wiki here. If you are commenting on another's proposal, it may be better to edit the page and add your comment below theirs. If you're proposing something having to do with the software or site itself, try the Wiki Community/Technical Discussion entry.
Proposals
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
For older comments, please see the Wiki Community/Proposals/Archive page.
2008-06-12 17:45:14 I propose that editors wishing to link to California Aggie articles should use archive.org links when available. They are definitely more stable in the long term than californiaaggie.com links. All californiaaggie.com links have broken at least twice in the life of the wiki. —WilliamLewis
-
Why shouldn't the Aggie feel some responsibility to provide archival long term links to their stories? —JasonAller
-
Not a bad idea, but I can see the Aggie actually asking for Archive.org to remove their history. Blearg.
2008-06-26 22:36:20 One-hit-wonder accounts that come through and bash a business have been a problem for quite awhile. Clarity Massage worries me a bit more than most, though. An anonymous poster with no history (and thus reputation) came through and posted unverifiable allegations of illegal activity instead of reporting it to the police, who actually have the resources to investigate the complaint. It looks like this comment has lead to the business losing at least one customer. I don't know what we need to do, but something does need to be done. At the very least, I think someone who wants to allege such things should have the police department pursue this and/or stand behind their real name so the business has a chance to defend themselves if their comment is allowed to remain. Any ideas? —WilliamLewis
These drive me nuts. Another massage business was directly accused of prostitution here. That comment still stands. Restaurants are routinely accused of violating health codes ("I found a bug under the food") without proof — the most damaging thing you can say about a restaurant. An auto repair business yells at customers (doubtful) and degrades women (more doubtful). No details, just accusations. But if the business owner were to remove the posts, they would likely be restored.
Basically, IMO, if the comment implies or accuses, without any detail or evidence, something that is against the law, that accusation should be removed by one of us. Also, personally insulting comments should also be removed. I don't think the Davis Wiki exists to facilitate harm to local businesses. But I have a clear bias on this topic, so it would be useful for others to weigh in on it. —DonShor
There's another discussion of this at Wiki Community/Reputation. I've been tagging one hits with the phrase there (so I pull them back up at a future date). —jw
2008-06-29 00:17:37 Proposal: create a page flag for pages that contain time-sensitive information or are out of date. This way it would be easy to 1) track pages that become outdated frequently, and 2) help individuals communicate easily that information may be wrong, despite the fact the individual may not know or know how to obtain the most up-to-date information.
I would do it myself if I had a modicum of an idea of where to start, but perhaps this would be a task best left to someone with actual programming experience. —MaryLieth
2008-11-18 19:01:55 Why doesn't the DavisWiki.org site offer a discussion forum area? While this is a GREAT site, and also very useful, it would be even better if there was an area to start threads and discuss information related to Davis. Ideally, a phpBB forum or a vBulletin forum would do the trick.
Some uses might include the posting of jobs, local classified ads, community proposals, etc. I think it could be a great way to communicate about topics without having to hunt for something specific in the Wiki. —BrettW
2009-04-14 12:31:38 Can we make it so that the search box is highlighted when i open the main page? For example, I go to Davis Wiki and I can immediately type and search instead of having to click the search box. As far as I know, most people use the page to search, so this makes sense to me. As for the people who aren't searching, you can scroll with your mouse anyway. It shouldn't be too hard to make this change right? —quadshock
2009-05-05 14:31:25 How about a feature to mute certain pages from the recent changes (cf. some of the changes on/around May 5th). —TheAmazingLarry
-
You mean like the "Clear Observed Changes" button on top of the Recent Changes page? —BrentLaabs
-
No, I mean to mute the changes to individual pages. For example, I'd like to stop seeing all the back-and forth exchanges like that on RealComputers.
-
Generally stuff like that only happens a couple days, once or twice a year. The "anti-bookmark" feature has been proposed in the past, it just needed so rarely I don't think it's been high priority. If you code the feature or find somebody willing to code it for you and it doesn't suck up CPU time, I'm sure it would be added, however. —jw
-
How can I go about that? I mean, assuming I can chisel out some free time to do it... :(
-
Sycamore is the dev wiki for Wiki Spot. Developers wanted! I also came up with a nice variant that would keep most of the chatter down (other than the actual edit wars before they get routed to Talk pages). Modify [[RecentChanges]] to have a version that omits Users/* and */Talk entries, a la how [[WantedPages]] omits User/* by default. That should be just about as fast as a normal RecentChanges call, minus the overhead in displaying to conditionally display based on the entry id. Most of the content free back and forth is on Users/* anyway. —jw
2009-06-15 13:59:58 I'd suggest the addition of discussion threading to the wiki code. We often have very complex discussions, but tracking and updating threads can be difficult, especially for non-advanced users. This might be accomplished with an edit thread button if you click on a specific thread, for example. Time stamping of all posts, not just main ones, could also be helpful here. —IDoNotExist
What steps have you taken to implement this? How do you imagine it working with existing markup? —NickSchmalenberger
Me personally? Nothing. I don't work on wiki code. I just thought it might be useful as it solves a problem that I frequently see on here... —IDoNotExist
2009-08-12 01:30:38 I think it might benefit the wiki to change the text for the "delete page" option (when editing a page) so that it actually says "delete page" on the button, as opposed to the current "delete". I've seen a few people who accidentally delete a page when they mean to revert their most recent edit, and I think it's because the current setup does not actually explicitly tell the user that it is a page being deleted. —JoePomidor
-
In addition, the Revert button could have the button-label text changed to "Undo". I think that would really be far more user friendly. -ES
-
Bad idea, because reversion and undoing are different things. A revert takes the page back to a previous revision. Undo undoes a specific edit and that edit alone. (Sycamore doesn't implement undos in a way normal users can use them)—wl
-
Actually, I had thought there was a "Revert" button between "Delete" and "Rename" in the box under the changelog. There isn't, so indeed it would be a bad idea as stated. Unless, we add in said button. Right next to "Delete" have a "Revert to Last Version" button or something. Sort of like a quick revert, so that people don't click "Delete" (and most people won't click "Info" to go to the actual 'reverts'). -ES
-
Do we need to make reverting any easier? I think there is quite enough of it as it is. —JasonAller
-
That sounds like it disregards legitimate uses of it, which is the entire context Joe brought up the accidental page deletions. Worrying about whether it might make it easier for a revert war seems silly; someone would have to hit the edit button and then go down to the button to click it. It'd still be faster to hit 'info' and move your cursor an inch down the screen. But said button would be pretty friendly to new users in particular, who seem prone to deleting entire pages thinking it'll undo their last edit. Changing Delete to Delete Page might help avoid this, but it won't help people who aren't used to editing entries and only use the comment box to input. I really doubt this would have any bigger effect on the wiki than those uses. -ES
-
Back to the original idea: This is a one line change to PageEditor.py, and I implemented in less than a minute on my testing box. The question is: will this actually help people out, or does it just make more clutter? Here's what it would look like:
Current: 
New: 
