Post BrickCon points of discussion

[Orion Pobursky]

During some discussion with various folks at BrickCon, I have a few points I'd like to open up to discussion:

- The main site would do well as a wiki. We have so many drive-by contributors that the wiki concept would work better than the front-end/back-end we have currently. It would also alleviate the admins from much of the theme coding and article maintenance. That said, the contributor agreement would mean no anonymous editing (currently disallowed on the wiki anyway.

- I'd like to bring back the MOTM and SOTM. I think it generated a small amount of traffic to the site. I could even automate it to some degree since LDView is installed on the server.
 and brigl can be use for machines that can handle it.

- The PT needs an overhaul. This was painfully obvious during the server shift last summer.

Thought?

P.S. I have a few more ideas that were brought up but I can't remember them right now.

[Chris Dee]

- The PT needs an overhaul. This was painfully obvious during the server shift last summer.

On my to do list for this winter, when other interests tak up less of my spare time. Should we start a features wish list?

[Orion Pobursky]

- The PT needs an overhaul. This was painfully obvious during the server shift last summer.

On my to do list for this winter, when other interests tak up less of my spare time. Should we start a features wish list?

Lets do that in a separate thread.

[Willy Tschager]

- The main site would do well as a wiki. We have so many drive-by contributors that the wiki concept would work better than the front-end/back-end we have currently. It would also alleviate the admins from much of the theme coding and article maintenance. That said, the contributor agreement would mean no anonymous editing (currently disallowed on the wiki anyway.

If this means that the main site will look like a wiki I'm against a change. I don't like the style and how it behaves.

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

- The main site would do well as a wiki. We have so many drive-by contributors that the wiki concept would work better than the front-end/back-end we have currently. It would also alleviate the admins from much of the theme coding and article maintenance. That said, the contributor agreement would mean no anonymous editing (currently disallowed on the wiki anyway.

If this means that the main site will look like a wiki I'm against a change. I don't like the style and how it behaves.

w.

I doesn't have to. Themes are able to change things.

[Orion Pobursky]

If this means that the main site will look like a wiki I'm against a change. I don't like the style and how it behaves.

w.

I doesn't have to. Themes are able to change things.

Here's an example of a MediaWiki powered page that doesn't look like Wikipedia:
https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/..._MediaWiki

[Willy Tschager]

I doesn't have to. Themes are able to change things.

Here's an example of a MediaWiki powered page that doesn't look like Wikipedia:
https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/..._MediaWiki

This looks actually good but what about work on the granular privileges of the current CMS with giving people the rights they need to do the job - you know the thing with the ldraw.xml file which I'd like to store on our site?

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

Here's an example of a MediaWiki powered page that doesn't look like Wikipedia:
https://www.semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/..._MediaWiki

This looks actually good but what about work on the granular privileges of the current CMS with giving people the rights they need to do the job - you know the thing with the ldraw.xml file which I'd like to store on our site?

w.

Actually, mediawiki as pretty granular permissions so, if anything, it’ll be easier some it has a built in picture and file manager. However, I’ll investigate what needs to be done to see if it’ll meet our needs.