Visit the forum instructions to learn how to post to the forum, enable email notifications, subscribe to a category to receive emails when there are new discussions (like a mailing list), bookmark discussions and to see other tips to get the most out of our forum!
[Wiki] Distinguishing project pages from tool/technology pages
  • Can't post in the web infrastructure forum, so I'll post here. I think
    all specific project pages should belong to the category "Project".
    Other pages that are not explicitly project pages shouldn't discuss the
    projects, only refer to them. For example, the entry "Tractor" should
    discuss tractors in general terms and specifically what OSE
    needs tractors to do. However, specific implementations of tractors such
    as "Lifetrac", "Microtrac", or any other tractor projects in the future
    should be distinct. These specific projects fulfill the needs and
    available technologies specified in "Tractor".

    All projects should also have specific names not generic ones. There shouldn't be a project named "Solar collector" or "Steam engine" but rather "Sunfire solar collector" or "GR1 Steam engine".

    I'd like to start making steps in this direction when editing the wiki, let me know what you think.
  • 9 Comments sorted by
  • I think that this is what the wiki is for.  There, we have both generic technology pages and specific project pages.  While consensus is still emerging as we figure out how to run OSE projects, I think that if you look closely, you'll see OSE projects (at least some of them) are fairly specific.  If you have a look at, you'll note that there are Steam Engine Design/2009 and a Steam Engine Design/Solenoid pages to at least describe other attempts and approaches that might be considered. The current "Modern Steam Engine" project (which I am still pushing, like a boulder, up hill)  could be called a "OSE Uniflow Bump Valve Steam Engine" or OSE-UBVSE.  Please, for the sake of my sanity, can't we just call it the OSE Steam Engine - at least until we decide to move on to a better design?

    - Mark Norton

  • "OSE Steam Engine" will work because its different than "Steam Engine". "Steam Engine" should be generic.....currently that page directs to the project page and doesn't describe the general technology and requirements.

    The idea is that essentially all the categories listed here should be generic pages which list the specific implementations (OSE projects) inside of them. Or perhaps there can be projects listed there, but there should be some distinction.

    The reason I'm going down this path is I'd like to make a number of pages on wireless technology, but currently the whole subject is rather unorganized in my opinion. Since it doesn't seem like anyone has got a huge stake in the wireless topics right now, maybe I should just modify at will.
  • Ok, I see your point.  The "Steam Engine" page is currently re-directed to "Steam Engine Intro", which is the main project page for the OSE Steam Engine (part of the product template).  I don't know how to un-do a redirect.  I will contact Elfarley and see what can be done.

    - Mark
  • I have fixed the re-direct problem.  There is now a "Steam Engine" page at which describes Steam Engines at a generic level and provides a number of links to research.  Thank you for your suggestion.
  • I agree with Jason that the wiki is still a mess, although it has certainly come a long way since that thread was started. 

    Getting individual contributors (like me -guilt look-) to categorize the pages the way they should be categorized, etc. is certainly the basis of the solution (for which a How Contributors should use the wiki page, would really help), but there are always some gaps that people who are working on the project just won't even notice.  Or know how to change.

    On wikipedia this problem is solved by Wikipedians who know how to use the wiki and can therefore rearrange things easily (the also have tools like bots to make it all a lot easier).  We can then have a How to be a wikian on the OSE wiki page that makes it easy to join the team.

    Ultimately maybe there should be a working group of Wikians who do the same thing on a wiki of any size.  The wikimedia software certainly has the tools needed to implement this easily.   They may also be able to allow anonymous contributions by keeping vandalism etc. out., allowing or disallowing certain pages to accept anonymous contributions depending on whether they are getting swamped or not.

  • I think we are starting to see some order emerge in the wiki.  Standards are being developed - if slowly.  Still, I also think that the wiki will always be disorganized to some extent - it is the nature of of a wiki, to some degree.  Give it time and set and example by your own contributions.  :)

    - Mark

  • Some sort of guidance on contributing to the wiki can be found at the wiki instructions page (let me know how it should be improved).

    Regarding project pages, I think we could have categories like these:
    [[GVCS L1]] - for pages related to any of the 50 GVCS tools we are now focusing on - a "level one" GVCS, which will help us build the GVCS L2 iteration
    [[GVCS Candidates]] - for candidate projects which may or may not get into the OSE incubator.
    [[GVCS Incubation]]  - for projects that are to be accepted as official GVCS projects. see and to get an idea of what I mean
    [[GVCS ???]] - any other categories?
  • @elifarley - Yes, very good idea.  This is certainly needed.  Ideally there would be a mechanism to re-evaluate some of the priorities that have already been set. 

    The Dawg
  • @elifarley
    Good but a bit restrictive.  This assumes that all OSE projects will be GVCS projects and I strongly suspect they won't be.  I would propose:

    - GVCS Projects
    - Incubated Projects
    - Proposed Projects

    Inclusion in the GVCS is a completely separate matter.

    - Mark

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion