Familypedia talk:Collaboration of the month

(2006 discussion copied from Watercooler.)

Time for enticing some experts in from Central Wikia?
With our recent activity, which has shown some of you how ignorant I am about some technical matters such as footnotes and text boxes, I propose that we add ourselves to the list of potential candidates for "Collaboration of the month" on Central Wikia so as to get a bit of a look from keen Wikians who may happen to know how to do some of the things Bill and I want done (and maybe some of what Tasc wants, although he discovers most things soon after asking!!!). It will need a bit of a promotional paragraph, which I may start if I have time. Then it will need votes; four might be enough, but more would help, preferably before 1 December. Robin Patterson 06:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to help with that, when I return this weekend. Bill 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to collaborate too, if I can be of any help.--Tasc 16:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Right-oh, folks, voting at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Collaboration_of_the_month/vote#Genealogy and see if you can improve the pulling-power of my advertisement on http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Collaboration_of_the_month Robin Patterson 19:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at the Collab page, and a note at the top says that all of the current proposals are deficient in not describing specific tasks that need done. We should try to rectify that for ours. What specifically do we want the larger Wikia community to do? Merely to come here and add more ancestor pages? Or are there specific tasks that we need some wiki expertise for? I think that there are. I like the direction Bill is going in, and I'd love to see some more structured input along the lines of Rodovid or WeRelate. I like the flexibility here, but the major deficiency I see is the need to duplicate information on multiple pages. If we could have structured data about family relationships that could be incorporated in a flexible way, that would be ideal. If this wikia decides it wants to go in that direction, that's certainly an area where we could use some wiki-expertise consulting. What do others think? TomChatt 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to carry on this discussion in a slightly different setting66.32.17.82 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)further explanation to follow in a different format. 66.32.17.82 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Bill has added some really good detail to the statement of what sort of collaboration we would like. Convinced me!! Robin Patterson 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have succeeded. Five and a half votes, with the nearest contender just three votes. I've noted accordingly on the Vote/Talk page. So Bill and others can sharpen up the questions and prepare for a visit from a couple of "experts". (OK, a dozen experts might be better, but the Collaboration doesn't always bring floods of visitors!) Robin Patterson 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with one who came armed with a working knowledge of PHP and developing extensions. Bill 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)