This page is for discussing the contents of Davis Wish List.
Oh, now I see: fulfilled stuff stays on the same page too, like Trader Joe's? I don't think that is very logical and certainly not obvious nor helping the good cause. This page's way too heavy and too long. Nobody is interested like this, it's about lay-out too. I suggest people should be 'forced' to describe their wish in max 140 characters, like Twitter. Then it becomes appealing. Furthermore: wishes should be dated! Now nobody knows anymore what's old, what's new, what's hot ♨, what's cold ☃! ConstantiaOomen
I agree with all of what you just said. Of course, we 'urge' not 'force' but I agree brevity is more effective. Go for it. —DonShor
@ DonShor. Thanks. "Urge" sounds better, yes, but they should be severely punished when they exceed the 140 signs! Just kidding! I'll await more comments and then maybe I'll pick up my vacuum cleaner, and my baton.
My two cents: I kind of like the discussions — I find them charming — and don't want to limit the number of characters. I don't like living in a Twitterverse. But I agree that the page has become unwieldy. We could make a separate page for Davis Wish List/Wishes Fulfilled and link to it. Also, maybe some of the longer entries could become separate entries or integrated into other pages — for example, I know that parking and landscaping bins are discussed elsewhere on the wiki. Again, the key would be to link out to them. —CovertProfessor
- That's my take. The conversations reveal a snapshot of Davis, and I think there are enough sound bites and summaries on the net. Having a dry list here would remove the interesting part: why people want things. Also, I believe that if we simply split out a Davis Wish List/Restaurants, it would likely be much easier to deal with. -jw
- Ah, yes, "Restaurants" would be a very good one to separate out. —cp
@ CP I had that idea too: there must be a strict separation between wishes and fulfilled wishes. The idea of linking to elaborations is good too. But I'll stick to my view that the message should be brief and simple. 140 signs was an example, but it approaches the desired length. If people want their wishes come true, they must bring the message to the (wo)man. People are busy, need to be inspired quickly and effectively. How many of these wishes have come true in a foreseeable period of time? To little? That's because other people think: "Yeah, right, everybody has dreams, and dream on, baby." The challenge is to inspire people by means of a good, short and beautiful wish.
People need to see the challenge, the invitation, and must see it as an opportunity for themselves to do good to the community. A clear and manageable list invites; a long, elaborating, not up-to-date one scares people away. ConstantiaOomen
In my view, the suggestion that elaborations should be limited would be a deterrent, and make people think that if they couldn't be brief, they shouldn't comment at all, or that they shouldn't add to a discussion that is already getting lengthy. But some topics (like landscaping bins) need a lot of discussion and points of view. —cp
@ CP Why would they think that? That they can't be brief about it? We could help them being brief. I think everybody can be brief and link to their liking to something more elaborate. Just make a very clear and appealing shortlist of all wishes and elaborations can go everywhere, as far as I am concerned, just not in this oversight short list (which is not the same as a content list, on the existing page).
But you are around here longer than I am. How many wishes stay wishes and what could be the cause in your opinion? In my opinion it's not very appealing when people just chitchat about it, and the list keeps getting longer and dust starts descending on it.
I think the solution would be: every wish gets a short version, about 140 signs or less. And when people want it (no obligation): a long(er) version. So it will look like this, very simplified ( :-) ) - links where appropriate
I want a magazine about...
I want a new, special Davis-only Holiday-day, namely...
I want a Loving Hut in Davis!
Elaborations go elsewhere. Agreed? ConstantiaOomen
No, I don't agree. Along with JW, I think the reasons are what is most interesting. I think others should weigh in on this topic rather than you and I continuing to go back and forth. Ironically, however, you are proving why short elaborations are often not sufficient for topics that are controversial — and even a restaurant wish can be controversial in Davis. —cp
@ JW I would like to keep the wishes together. ConstantiaOomen
Davis Wish List/Target is an example of a page that was cleaved off from this page because it got too long. There was then a link made from this page to the Target page. So, there is precedent. The wish still appears on the page, but the longer discussion goes elsewhere. It would not have been possible to sum up that discussion. —cp
@ CP: You missed my point that I agree with elaborations, but there needs to be a shortlist, which is, I repeat, not the same as a content list.
Disagreeing is not the same as missing your point. —cp
@ CP The only change would be, that there would be a short list, and people can click on everything in it (if there's an elaboration involved). I understand that change is a threat to some people, but change often is a fresh wind and offers new opportunities. If you don't want that and you decide, then I will leave the whole 'Wish list page' alone. But IMO this "Wish List" is going nowhere now. PS! It's hardly anymore what it says that it is: a list. Point made. ConstantiaOomen
I will repeat what I said before — others need to weigh in on this issue. You and I going back and forth will not settle it. I simply don't agree with you, and insulting me with comments like "change is a threat" doesn't help and is pretty rude and disrespectful of a reasoned disagreement. —cp
@ CP I am not insulting you, I like you. But sometimes change is a threat, it's only human. Achoo! This Wish List really is a little dusty, my dust allergy is back up. ConstantiaOomen
I think there's a way to have a shorter list at the top of the page, with hyperlinks further down the page or something. Sort of 'current wish list' and 'further discussion' sections. I don't know exactly how to do that, but it would be great to have it more readable without losing the detail/context/conversations. Basically modify the existing table, I guess. We need tech advice here. —DonShor
Isn't that what we have now with the table of contents?
In general, to keep entries easily read and editable, they should be relatively short. There are some that are really difficult for content reasons to split up. In this particular case, I don't really see any problems with making sub pages and then linking them, which is similar structurally to what you're suggesting (a main set of links to subsections, although in individual entries rather than on the same page). -jw
That's what I had in mind (I think). My suggestion is that Constantia just go ahead and try redoing it to make it look better and read more easily, and we can just see how it works out. I think it's easier to do it than to explain it. DS
I am hearing two different proposals here:
JW's proposal — for items that have long explanations (like Restaurants and maybe Parking or Landscaping Bins), create a separate page and then link to that page from the appropriate place on the wish list. All else stays the same. This means that not of the discussion occurs on this page, although all of the list items appear on the same page.
CO's proposal — create a list at the top of the page with very short explanations (there is no point in creating a list with no explanations, since that is exactly what we have with the TOC) and then have within-page links to longer explanations below. The problems I see with this proposal are that it can be difficult to summarize the long discussion in a fair way and it creates a high bar for those who don't know how to do the within page links. Overall, the page requires more maintenance this way. CovertProfessor
What I have in mind: two concrete possibilities:
1. Create a 'shadow' page and build the new one there, so the old one stays intact for as long as it is needed. 2. Leave the old list as it is, and just start with this new idea on a new page, where everybody should formulate briefly and elaborate on other pages (or: below). A new Wish list, Wish List 2 as you want.
@ Don Just A list (not a content list, but a brief summary of the wishes) that any newspaper would be able to print. That means the elaborations should go down (as in: elaborations below) or elsewhere. Thanks for thinking with me! (same goes for JW) ConstantiaOomen
I for one LOVE the current format of the Wish List page. It's Classic Davis Wiki: long conversational format with a top bar for quick-jumping to the desired section. Keeping it all together allows readers to keep track of running themes, which means that one can see if there is a general desire for more general Stuff, more of a Subsection of Stuff, or a specific niche of Stuff. I don't see a need to purge historical stuff from the page, nor fulfilled stuff. I like the threaded conversation format and it's nice to see when things are added of the "this business addresses this past need" format. JudithTruman