FamilySearch Wiki talk:Wiki Support/Foundation/Additional Notes

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Who is supporting the wiki?[edit source]

  • Who are the members of the support team? We need to create a userbox for both tier 2 and tier 3 support that can be added to the user page of all those who are supporting the wiki. The "User Wiki Maintenance" userbox could be used, but I'd like to have a way to identify all those who are on the tier 2 team and those who are part of tier 3. I don't think the title of the userbox should be Tier 2 or Tier 3, so I'm looking for ideas. Anyone have an idea they'd like to share? See my own user page for an example of what the userboxes look like on someone's user page. -Fran 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should also have a WikiProject userbox template created for this project to transition support to Tier 2 and 3? See an example of a WikiProject userbox at the Template:User WikiProject Idaho page. I don't know the answer to this idea. What does everyone else think? -Fran 00:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
What would you like them to be identified for? I am think for now we can just use the Cleanup template - I'm not sure we want to have them set themselves apart on their user pages just yet. This may change once we're all trained so we'll see.... janellv
I like your conclusion. I wonder what tier 3 thinks? I'm going to move this discussion to the Discussion page and start a list on this page of those who are supporting the wiki. -Fran

The tables on this project page[edit source]

If anyone can make the tables on this project page look nicer, that would be great!!! I just don't have the time to figure out how to put color on the headings, space the cells and rows right to prevent unnecessary wrapping, etc. Tier 2 and 3 should become the experts at knowing how to use tables in the wiki. -Fran 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article name[edit source]

I'm wondering if the name of the article is a little misleading. It could at first glance been understood to be an article about efforts to support the numerous WikiProjects. Would a better title be FamilySearch Wiki:Support? Then this title could be used as a place for resources for those organising and running wikiprojects. --Steve 11:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought and one that never occurred to me before now. The "project" we are working on is one that is slated to end at the end of this year. After that, the ongoing Support of the wiki will continue to be a project in-an-of-itself because of the numerous aspects of support that are still in a development phase. Doesn't the Wiki already have another project or page that was meant to be a place where WikiProject leaders could get the "support" they need in their projects? Ideas anyone??? -Fran 20:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this the page you are referring to - Help:How to Run or Manage a Wiki Project? I would actually like to see us come up with a name for this project that doesn't even have the word "Support" in it - something about making the wiki a better place.... My creative juices are just not flowing at the moment. janellv 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I am proposing FamilySearch Wiki:WikiCare and Support. No WikiProject in front of it. I am seeing it as a little different than a project, though there may be projects that grow out of it. Thoughts?
The "project" this page was referring to was transferring the wiki support from a single individual to a group of individuals (tier 2 and 3). Now that this project has finished, this project page name could be moved to a different name that more closely resembles the purpose of the teams. So go ahead with your ideas but remember to work with tier 3 because they are part of the whole support process. -Fran 17:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Section on Special pages[edit source]

I think the section on Special Pages is important enough to have it own article. I propose moving the content of the current section to an article FamilySearch Wiki:Special pages, leaving here a general summary of the types of reports available and why they are important. --Steve 11:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied before now... I've been sick. I like your reasoning and agree that anyone who wants to learn about Special pages should be able to find the one article that describes what it is in detail. In this WikiProject we wanted to identify and describe the Special pages that are needed for supporting the wiki on a daily basis. I thought that the content I've included in each of the tables so far was from the perspective of what tier 2 and 3 need to understand and use in their support role. I don't have any objections to you moving forward with implementing your idea Steve. We can make any needed adjustments after the content is moved. -Fran 20:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the existence of the Help:Special pages article related to Special pages. Is there truly a need for both the Help article and the project page "FamilySearch Wiki:Special pages"? What does everyone else think? -Fran 23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it needs its own article. I don't think that we need two articles for it though, Help and FSWiki. But my question on this is, which one fits? It is a "How to understand a concept" article, but not a "How to do this in the Wiki" article. So where does that go? That's where I have the most difficulty understanding the difference between the Help and FSWiki namespaces. Which namespace does this belong in? janellv 16:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Janell, I have added some content/pages around the topic of the FamilySearch Wiki namespace. There is still much to do in sorting out which bits of information belong in which namespace, but hopefully the goal to achieve has become a little clearer. I have also split the Special pages section into it's own separate article. Once a sub-section has it's self sub-sub-sections in the double-digits, I think it's time the article can stand on it's own. Of course it's important to create links between the parent and child aricle and visa versa. --Steve 14:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)