Talk:Meta:Software template

From 43FoldersWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

OK, here's a basic run-through of how to create your software page:

  1. Search! Make sure an article for the software doesn't already exist.
  2. Go to the article page, hit edit. Select all, copy, paste into your favourite text-editing utility.
  3. Enter<name of software> into your browser's address bar. Note that all spaces should be replaced with underscores, and the rest of it is case-sensitive. This is one of the reasons I'm asking you to search first.
  4. You'll be confronted with a big empty box to fill in. Dump your source from the template in here.
  5. Make all the changes, fill in the description page, fill in the infobox.
  6. At the bottom of your page, type the following: [[Category:Software]]
  7. Open up a new window and go to Category:Software. You'll see a long list of types of software such as Category:Wiki-like Software and Category:Application Launchers. Pick one of these that best fits the program you're writing the article about, and add it as a category down the bottom next to the previous category thing. Finally, find the correct category for the OS of your software (e.g. Category:Macintosh Software or Category:Cross-Platform Software). Put that in too. So at the end your last line might look like: [[Category:Software]] [[Category:Application Launchers]] [[Category:Macintosh Software]]
  8. Hit show preview...make sure everything is right and works and stuff.
  9. Hit save page. Congratulations! Your page is complete.

--Akchizar 03:19, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

[edit] The links section

OK, I'm thinking of changing the links section to just have one links section. Very few programs are actually featured outside of the article on the wiki, as hacks now have a home. Anyone else got any ideas on the subject? While we're on it, how about some way to tell everyone that it's changed? Currently, every time we change the template we have to spend a good amount of time changing each software article.--Akchizar 23:00, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

Well, I've already chimed in with my thoughts on how the links should be handled. Basically, I just feel that the site as a whole will be slightly easier to navigate if we don't bother to explicitly indicate which links are internal to the wiki. Just let the user assume that all links are internal to the wiki unless explicitly stated otherwise. My previous comment really does the idea more justice. Other than that, the template seems fine to me. I wonder about the use of version # in the infobox though. Is it meant to indicate what version is usable for the hints provided? Is it simply meant to denote which is the most current version (this could get ugly as far as upkeep is concerned, especially for frequently patched apps). I guess I don't understand the purpose of the version field as far as GTD is concerned. Is it really useful information for the purposes of this wiki or could we do just as well without it? Especially since any tips or hints or troubleshooting info that is specific to a certain version will likely explicitly state as much anyway and they could end up referring to different versions of the software in the end. Think about the upcoming Tiger version of Mail. The whole virtual folder thing could wind up being very useful to GTD-minded folks, but those still using Panther won't be reading those articles. If the version of the software at the top of the page is the version only found in Tiger, will the Panther folks bother to scroll down to see the articles that could still apply to them? Or will they just leave? What is the intent of putting a version number in that box? And what are some of the likely results of putting a version number in that box? I'd dump it myself, but certainly, there should be discussion.
--ThePolack 23:32, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
Originally, I put the version in there so it was possible to keep track of the download and install size (there's nothing worse than thinking "Wow, that program sounds cool," only to go to the site an find that it's going to take your four hours to download over dial-up)...although it also give you an idea of how old the article is. It's also a way of showing you how old the article is - if it's several versions behind the current release, then it's probably a good time to go through and re-check all the data, make sure it's all correct. And finally, it gives you an idea of whether the software is in alpha, beta, or actually released (although technically this could go in the license section as well). I'm fine on dropping it depending on the general consensus, I just felt it was a useful thing to have there.
--Akchizar 00:46, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

I think the version number could be very useful if it indicates when the page was last updated (though I also think that the wiki kind of has that functionality built-in with last-modified dates and everything else that it has). It's not so much that the version is useless, it's just that in any circumstances where the version number is useful (for instance for hints that only work with certain versions) then the version info should be in the hint. The problem I see with putting it on the application page is primarily if we claim that it is the most recent version and it is not, then that info is innaccurate. People can react to that by saying, "Oh well, this page hasn't been updated in a while, but I'm sure it's still useful." Or they can say, "This page is out of date, I'm going some place else."

I think most people's first impulse is to leave and look for info elsewhere. I think there may be other ways for us to indicate how up-to-date our information is without having as negative an impact on the wiki's credibility when it isn't completely up-to-date.

Honestly though, this is probably the least important thing to think about. Either way is probably fine in the end. This whole discussion is really nitpicking more than anything else (I'm a designer, it's a habit). --ThePolack 11:37, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

I second the idea of removing the version number from the template. It'll invariably get out of date and require more work to keep the page current, with no real benefit (that I can see). --JamesRifkin 15:10, 28 Mar 2005 (CST)
Yeah, that's enough public opinion to get rid of it. Thanks for the input. --Akchizar 23:36, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)
Personal tools