Template talk:New on the wiki

From Geohashing
Revision as of 22:45, 5 April 2010 by imported>Robyn (Clarifying that anyone can post an announcement.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Announcement Box

What do you think?

Nice. I am a bit confused about the last sentence, though. I think the template belongs on the main page. :) -- relet 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As it is a template it's supposed to have a usage note, and there may be people who link to the wiki through their User page and want to see it there. I have placed it on the Main Page. It probably needs its own section, but I didn't want to make it take up more room.
Heh, why not use {{New on the wiki}} instead? :D -- relet 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what you're suggesting. Isn't that exactly what I did? -Robyn 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It said to embed {{Getting started}} before. I just fixed it. All this seems like a nice idea, however, I don't really like the name of it, "New on the wiki". How about "Recent Wiki-related News" or something like that? Koepfel talk 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
OH! From the "usage" section, d'oh. I thought Relet was saying that I hadn't placed it correctly on the Main Page. I didn't think the name of the template mattered all that much, seeing as it's only seen when maintained. But the headline that people read is important. "Recent Wiki-related News" sounds wrong to me, because "this template can help you document your expedition" or "aperfectring has a cool implementation" doesn't match "News" to me. I would expect "Recent Wiki-related News" to be news about Wikis in general. I would expect it to be boring and not read it. I considered also "Did you know?" for a name for the section. What bothers you about "New on the wiki?" -Robyn
Well, as you said, the name of the template is not that important. It was just, that when I first saw it in the recent changes, I thought for a second, this was to inform new wiki-users about how this works. Now that I think about it, "New on the wiki" is not so bad. Koepfel talk 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Just "News" maybe? -- relet 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good. Koepfel talk 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to place this box at the Recent Changes page. It would give people browsing the recent changes a short overview about new stuff, without having to visit the main page. We (by which I mean Joannac) could add the template to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. Koepfel talk 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

JoannaC did it. And thanks for the border fix. It looks nicer. I wasn't happy with it either, but I figured tweaking the appearance would be part of discussing the box. -Robyn

If I don't make my browser window wide enough, the two columns of "new on the wiki" overlap the Table of contents on the "Current events" page. Hopefully a wiki-wizard can fix this.Jiml 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive Links

That looks better, Benjw. Thanks. -Robyn 15:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested announcements

If you are okay formatting the announcement yourself, just go ahead and put it up. You can move the oldest announcement to the previous announcements section as you do so, if it's been up for a few weeks.

  • photo contest?
  • As of 2010-01-15 Berlin, Germany is now tied for second place with Seattle, Washington for most expeditions
    Nah, I don't think that's announceworthy. -- relet 11:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    What would be? Tied with Atlanta, Georgia? --NWoodruff 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    Not really, imho. That place is really for something other people shouldn't miss, not just a change in the ranking of any particular achievement. There are so many, and they change all the time. We still have the hall of amazingness for all the really amazing stuff, and the individual achievement pages for whatever is important to the achievement itself. And I personally find it rather sad not to see Thomcat and the Seattle gang around anymore. -- relet 13:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    I also see it sad that the Seattle gang isn't around any more. --NWoodruff 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)