MuseWiki talk:Community portal

Wiki style

Hi there, I'm a Muse fan who doubles as a regular over at Wikipedia. I thought you might want to check out their Manual of Style for ideas of how to make this wiki a good bit tighter than it currently is. Examples of good ideas they've had are not capitalising article titles unless it's the name of something (such as Butterflies And Hurricanes (song) rather than the current Butterflies And Hurricanes (Song) and the same in section headers. The colons (:) after the section headers also looks a bit dodgy at the moment, so for example maybe ==Additional Information:== should be ==Additional information==. I'm not going to go round all the pages changing stuff unless it's decided to adopt this stuff officially (plus an admin will probably want to do hard renames on article names rather than leaving lame redirects everywhere with the move function). Which brings an interesting point. Who's in charge here? Is it Crazybobbles alone, or can the community decide big things if they have consensus like on Wikipedia? It might help if people know what the score is. BigBlueFish 16:19, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

At the moment, I'm in charge of the wiki, but I would like to assign a few people as admins some time in the future. Consensus sounds fun, definitely better then leaving one person to decide it all, im up for that. The colon bit is definitely worth changing since I think back then it was only bold formatting, is the title thing just Butterflies and Hurricanes? I can't think of any more atm, but it does sound fine to change it like that, redirects would definitely be needed so people dont get lost with it all. I will have a closer look at the manual of style when I have more time and all. Others can feel free to contribute to this section as this a team esque discussion rather then me deciding.

Keep it foolish --crazybobbles 22:50, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

References

Now that the Wiki is starting to "shape up" again, I think it would be a good idea to cite references for information in articles. The reasons for, of course, are that then the reader can then judge whether the source is reliable enough to believe what they're reading, how the history of Muse unfolded in the media/forums we reference, we could make sure that no information is added that is unfounded and made up on the spot, we would know where we've sifted for information on that topic ... etc. I really believe that it would be beneficial, especially if this increase in activity is accurately suggestive of the future. The wiki is getting rather big :)

The question, if there is a consensus for encouraging references, is how we would do so. Would it work just like on the Wikipedia? With the whole function brackets and adding information within them? Or would the Wiki (and of course PHP) have to be upgraded first? Or the Wiki be configured? --Tene 20:51, 23 August 2006 (BST)

In regards to upgrading the wiki to 1.7, i'm going to have a test on that one when I'm back online properly. My hosting server IS capable of delivering using php5 but last time i tried it (when the database went down) it sort of screwed up, I didnt try it again because I was more concerned in getting the wiki back so I used 1.6, I'll do some testing on 1.7 and see if it works. Its a case of either labelling all the php stuff to php5 OR some htaccess stuff. --crazybobbles 21:47, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Woohoo, installed the cite.php extension, this will allow me to do stuff like this