NYCwiki:General forum

From NYCwiki
Revision as of 14:27, 2 March 2011 by Wwwhatsup (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the NYCwiki General forum. Project discussion, proposals, and miscellaneous ideas should be brought here for consideration before the editing community.



Wishlist 2

  • That wikipedia javascript that gives mouseover diff previews on watchlist and history! Wwwhatsup 07:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried this, including importing popups.js, but it didn't work. Then I tried installing Gadgets and that didn't work either. Wwwhatsup 22:48, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
  • Require email address for those registering an account (while still allowing editing by IPs). Joly?--Pharos 19:11, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
I'm not entirely sure how to do it. One can set specific permissions for any group - so I could switch off edit permissions for the group 'non-email confirmed but not anonymous' but it would seem to add to confusion and, if explained, a possible disincentive to register. I'll keep RTFM, maybe there's a simple way to insist on email confirmation at the registration stage, but I haven't discovered it as yet. What is good news is that there is this extension [1] for mass emailing all users. Wwwhatsup 20:36, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
$wgEmailConfirmToEdit maybe? Cbrown1023 17:31, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Well, we may end up going for it - however it would appear to rule out IP edits. I could experiment with permitting IP edits and setting this just to see what happens, but I would think this would supercede. Wwwhatsup 02:43, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
Are you sure that it would rule out IP edits? I don't see anything saying that that would happen. Cbrown1023 talk 11:58, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
You are suggesting that "Require users to confirm email address before they can edit" might apply to IP's as well? I'd be surprised! I'll enable it and we shall see. Wwwhatsup 13:51, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

YesY Done Wwwhatsup 14:07, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Hmm, looks like you were right. It applies to anonymous users as well. :-( (Ideally, that shouldn't be the case... they shouldn't make it so anons can't edit just because you want users to have to confirm their e-mail.) Cbrown1023 talk 14:14, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
Yep. As I suspected. IP cannot create but has edit option. However on clicking edit is told - you need an email address. On clicking email address is told - you need to login. I guess it's not SO bad.. edit option is there for IPs to click, but only if they register w/email = better than no option - which I could set with User Permissions. Pharos? Wwwhatsup 14:21, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
Hmm, that's a pretty big drawback. One would like to both be open to anons and be able to spam registered users, but if we have to choose I guess openness would be a higher priority than spamminess. At some point, I guess I'll put in a bugzilla report to fix this.--Pharos 15:37, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
My feeling is that, at this young formative stage, it's not such a bad thing. More structure and practice, plus a decent quorum of qualified editors - with whom we can communicate via email as necessary, might be a good thing before throwing open the gates to IPs. Wwwhatsup 17:00, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
If you're going to go the "no anon editing" route, you should not give them the edit permissions. Having them see "you need to confirm your e-mail address" and then "you need to login first" is probably just going to confuse and discourage them. Cbrown1023 talk 17:15, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
On the other hand it does give a ready path in for the nibbler. I realize that it might piss off more experienced editors. Wwwhatsup 17:28, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
I can see the virtue in a slow-growth approach, and I've been careful about promoting NYCwiki too widely too early, but I do think as we're growing and especially for something like the public radio project it will pretty much be a requirement to be really open to nibblers.--Pharos 12:52, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
  • I wish that Talk and Discussion were the same, i.e., click Discussion and you go to the Talk page. Tom Lowenhaupt 02:20, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
They are. Aren't they? Clarify. Wwwhatsup 03:53, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
Yes, they are the same. But one is called Talk and the other Discussion. Can be confusing.


Nabe template

At the the moment this has no subst. capability- shouldn't a version be made that can drop in to subpages? Wwwhatsup 06:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

With the return to subpages in subfolders, and enabling subpages in the main namespace, this is now fixed. Wwwhatsup 21:07, 6 July 2010 (PDT)
I've now revamped {{Nabe}}, to give it the look and feel of something more integral to the project.--Pharos 09:47, 14 July 2010 (PDT)
Well you possibly could Tom, at Template:Nabe, but you'd probably make a mess. Since it's an administrative issue too good behavior would be to make a suggestion, and gain consensus, after which Pharos will likely make the change. That could be done here or, more appropriately, on Template talk:Nabe. Wwwhatsup 02:13, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
Suggested edit to {{Nabe}} template: "Neighborhood Directory" changed to "Neighborhood Home Page"; a separate "Neighborhood Directory" item linking to a Neighborhood/Directory subpage, that would be directory-type listing of facilities, institutions, etc. in the neighborhood. Robert Pollard 13:30, 26 July 2010 (EDT)
I note on the Harlem subpages there's a spurious /center> in the nabe templates. Wwwhatsup 03:22, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Understanding & Using Templates

Joly, I see you have been busy importing a whole load of Templates from Wikipedia. It would be helpful if we could understand more about templates & how to use them.

Meanwhile, I am wondering whether it might be useful also to have a format for a Neighborhood {{Infobox}}, displayed at the top right, below {{Nabe}}, that would allow concise & consistent display of basic neighborhood information, including very brief description, borough, small map (including location w/in the borough), elected officials representing the neighborhood, etc. Robert Pollard 13:30, 26 July 2010 (EDT)

Both of these things are on my ToDo list Robert. When importing templates I included all related templates to be on the safe side - there are plenty that are redundant. On the Infobox issue we need to have some discussion as to how much info they might reasonably contain without totally duplicating the content of the page. Wwwhatsup 16:02, 26 July 2010 (EDT)

The "Official" Neighborhoods (areas unrecognized by the NYC Department of City Planning)

I see that Blurpeace is deleting such additions. Questions:

  • Would not a category and redirects be a better solution?
  • Do we need/agree on the NYCDCP list as canonical?
Redirects are what should have been done, but I was being lazy. I can go through my deletion log to see what's salvageable later. Deleting the articles made organization of viable redirects simpler. The project scope should probably be expanded as we grow but for now I support having a strict NYCDCP scope until we see more activity. If others disagree, I can certainly see their point of view. All in all, I hold no strong opinion on the matter. Sincerely, Blurpeace 23:32, 9 July 2010 (PDT)
I suggest just adding [[Category:Areas unrecognized by the NYC Department of City Planning]] is good enough right now, and, if listed on the front page, add a <ref="non-NYCDCP">Area unrecognized by the NYC Department of City Planning</ref>. We can think about merges later. Wwwhatsup 00:09, 10 July 2010 (PDT)
These were the same set of 305 that were selected for dotneighborhoods and reserved for future community .nyc domains, right? If so, yes, those would be the baseline canonical ones.--Pharos 18:45, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
I would encourage some flexibility on limiting our efforts to the "canonical list", with the thought that we might at some point enter into dialogue with City Planning that would allow us to reserve additional neighborhood domains., e.g. including those identified by Community Affairs Unit as included in Community District - as well as addressing other significant omissions, such as Harlem. Robert Pollard 11:13, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
Yes, but I think the 305 that have already been set aside should certainly be our "priority" ones to develop.--Pharos 12:55, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
Whichever way we go, we should get going, making a point to "the city" that there's a plan for the neighborhood names in the works. Perhaps a meeting at the Neighborhood Preservation Center, Inc., and perhaps a jointly with ISOC & Wikimedia, for September is a way to go. Tom Lowenhaupt 02:27, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Integrate Jackson Heights Wikipedia article

It would be great to have the wikipedia:Jackson Heights, Queens article sliced and diced to assimilate into the different Jackson Heights subject-specific pages on NYCwiki. Blurpeace, care to take a stab?--Pharos 19:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

To me this makes mores sense than blindly importing entire Wikipedia articles - which is why, back in the earliest days, I reverted Tom's import, much to his disgust :) It's more convoluted but it gives us much better, as you say, integrity. Wwwhatsup 20:13, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
I followed up on Blurpeace last night by 1) adding CSS to float the map right, 2) wikipedifying every link except neighborhoods - it's still pretty much hit and miss on that front. I have a macro in my text editor that does the conversion - I just have to pay careful attention to avoid those that are already piped. I added w: as a shorthand for wikipedia:, just to keep things simple. The eventual followup is going to be - every time we make a new article - we'll have to do a search and unconvert any w: links, not such a big deal. Wwwhatsup 05:30, 22 July 2010 (EDT)
I did some slicing and dicing. More integration needed in the articles. One would think that the external links on the main page should drop off into their respective areas of interest? Not a lot left for the fron page beyond geographic. Ideally I suppose there should be ledes of each subpage with a "more' link. Wwwhatsup 06:09, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
Yeah, I agree that we should give some more thought to the structure of the neighborhood main pages.--Pharos 13:31, 23 July 2010 (EDT)


  • Maps that show adjacent neighborhoods and its location in the city as a whole. Tom Lowenhaupt 12:28, 11 July 2010 (PDT)
I've broken Tom's request above out of the wishlist for further attention. Any suggestions? Wwwhatsup 20:46, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
We should certainly I think have some map(s) or map-layer(s) that takes neighborhood boundaries from the Department of City Planning scheme--Pharos 13:40, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
As far as I can tell, City Planning does not provide definitions of neighborhood boundaries - at least not at the above link, that just indicates which community district a neighborhood is in. Robert Pollard 12:56, 26 July 2010 (EDT)
  • On the topic of map extensions, the current one Maps appears to be of less utility than the google maps one. It allows pinpointing locations which AFAICT 'Maps' doesn't. You'll note on the documentation that this adds functionality to the edit page bringing up a 'make a map' option. This can be seen, experimented with. at the ISOC-NY wiki. See the current events page for an example map. Wwwhatsup 20:46, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
  • It would be great if maps from DoITT CityMap & OasisNYC could be displayed; both offer a large number of useful display layers and both allow capturing permalinks of a current view that would be serve as the basis for the map to be displayed. Concern was expressed at last week's meeting about copyright issues, with these maps, however, if Google maps - which are copyrighted - can be displayed, surely the CityMap and OasisNYC are entitled to equal treatment. Btw, I was unable to include the links for CityMap and OasisNYC as first, the Captcha box had no words, and then displayed Input error: Invalid referer . Robert Pollard 11:43, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Yes. I promised to follow up on that and I will. My feeling is that a good way to proceed is to do a couple and then we can ask if that's ok. Don't know what the problem was with recaptcha, but I've re-installed and it appears to be working now. As a logged in user, once you have done it once you should never see it again. Wwwhatsup 14:27, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Recaptcha still pops up for me after a few edits. Seems to me there's a setting that says - making lots of edits, might be span, activate recaptcha Tom Lowenhaupt 18:40, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
Incidentally I have added the coord template from wikipedia - see Template:Coord/doc Wwwhatsup 06:02, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
  • Map options - It seems we have four map options: Google, Oasis, City Planning, OpenStreetMap. With OpenStreetMap attending the August 28-29 event. As well, there's OpenPlans' OpenGeo project. Perhaps there could be a panel at 28-29 on this topic. I find that Wikipedia does a less than optimum job of presenting maps. So perhaps this is of interest to more than the NYCwiki project. Tom Lowenhaupt 10:58, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
I've noticed that AOL's Patch] site seems to be doing well with OpenStreetMap. Wwwhatsup 03:56, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Tom's comments moved from Community Portal

I don't understand the difference between Community Portal and General Forum. Tom Lowenhaupt 23:16, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

If you take a look at Wikipedia:Community_portal you can see what a well-developed community portal looks like. In contrast to the main page which is the public front door, it is a single place where editors/participants can go to find out news, tasks, projects etc. The General Forum is just what it says it is, a place where one can discuss issues of general interest. Issues to do with content on individual pages/articles should be addressed on their associated talk pages. Wwwhatsup 02:49, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
FYI, what we're calling the "General forum" is more usually called the "Village pump" on Wikimedia sites.--Pharos 13:03, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Random page seems fairly worthless for such an prominent position. Tom Lowenhaupt 23:16, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Early days, Tom. Wwwhatsup 02:49, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
Random page is a hallowed and idiosyncratic MediaWiki tradition :)--Pharos 13:03, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
In the instance of wikipedia I can see jumping around an encyclopedia as a intellectual stimulation. And perhaps for editors it's a nice way to randomly check quality. But for neighborhoods? If it was to go to a random page in the neighborhood, I could see some benefit. But to a random page in another neighborhood? Tom Lowenhaupt 23:17, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
What's unstimulating about jumping around NYC? Wwwhatsup 23:32, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
It is stimulating. But it is not forwarding "neighborhood improvement." There could be 1,000 similar pages, some perhaps more stimulating - See most recently edited page. See most frequently edited page. See newest page... All might be placed in a navigation section such as "Fun Toolbox" But to give it such prominence in Navigation is a off purpose.

I think you are jumping the gun, Tom. Let's just worry about the wiki content before we start messing too much with the format. Fact is that the basic mediawiki format is something that has resulted from many minds spending many hours. The simpler it is the better it works as a rule, the alternative is very likely menu bloat. The random link is a valuable wild card, an escape valve if you will. The latest edit link is there already: [Special:RecentChanges Recent changes], which would also give the newest page, many others a click away under Special pages: [Special:MostRevisions|Pages with the most revisions] included. Tweaking the left menu when we are still struggling for the most basic level of content is putting the cart well before the horse. It works for wikipedia, let's not be in a rush to add bells and whistles. IMO. Wwwhatsup 01:29, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

Agreed, not worth much talk at this point. But I'll passively-aggressively end by noting that Random is a bell and whistle that I suggested be removed as inappropriate for neighborhoods. (Initially unsigned by Tom Lowenhaupt) post-correction by Tom Lowenhaupt 14:34, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
I note your (inappropiately opinionated IMO) description of the Ann Arbor wiki posted on the Community Portal :
  • Ann Arbor has nothing worth looking at, judging by the stats. My perusal showed little of interest.
I was a bit short on that, perhaps I should have said "The site has 6,000+ articles but only 13 Active users ("Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days") recently - but I may be misinterpreting that indicator. My goal in searching those pages was to find ones that people are using; to determine what they are using it for; and perhaps to learn. My statement was trite. Tom Lowenhaupt 16:02, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
Now, if you had hit Random page a few times, you might well have found something stimulating.
Lastly, I'd say that no neighborhood is an island. Wwwhatsup 01:55, 25 July 2010 (EDT)


When one goes to the second level pages for neighborhoods, e.g., Jackson Heights/Culture, and one wants to go back one page, the inclination is to go to Navigation Bar and Main page. For the moment, perhaps we can try adding "Jackson Heights - main page" to the top of the culture page, where it now just says Jackson Heights. Tom Lowenhaupt 23:16, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you are missing here Tom, as 1) under the title Jackson Heights/Culture there is an evident link "<Jackson Heights", and then the top left item in the nabe template - "Directory" - also links back up one level. Couldn't be much bigger or clearer. Directory could be renamed to "Main Page" in the template, if there was consensus, but it would seem that Pharos has a vision where the main page for a neighborhood ultimately should strictly be a portal, and the "Directory" name emphasizes that. Pharos? Wwwhatsup 02:56, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
Hmm, perhaps the "Directory" page could be made more prominent than the others, so that it is more clearly the central one.--Pharos 13:20, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Scope of Neighborhood Sites

It's my belief that neighborhood sites should serve the neighborhood from which they take their name, not primarily the interest of those outside the neighborhood, thus serving the interest or tourist organizations or real estate agents. Tom Lowenhaupt 23:06, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Neighborhood sites should primarily reach neighbors. So perhaps we're having a street party on 78th Street and 31st and 30th Avenue and we want it to be just for the people in the surrounding area. We get a street closing permit from the city and we want neighbors to come but we don't want buss loads. We want to limit the notice to the neighborhood.

Or perhaps we have an opinion about the quality of a longtime good neighbors restaurant that's not entirely favorable. We want him to get the message but we don't want to call in the health department or suggest he be removed from Zagat.

Or imagine there a political race and we want to have a discussion about the quality of services provided by certain resident who's running for office, or maybe discuss who we think should run for office. And we don't want it spread outside the site, for doing so would bring speculation that might reduce the breadth of the conversation. Tom Lowenhaupt 23:06, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Each of these and many similar questions have a copyright implication. Perhaps a form of Chathan House Rules Copyright Tom Lowenhaupt 23:06, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

First, I'd say that the whole idea of a wiki is basically to be open and inclusive. That said, there are indeed extensions whereby user groups can be formed and given exclusive access to certain pages. I think this is not something we should not concern ourselves with at this stage. Wwwhatsup 03:41, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
While I agree with the comment that "the whole idea of a wiki is basically to be open and inclusive" there are many exceptions depending on the use. In Wikipedia there are advertising restrictions, neutral voice... In many corporate wiki's porn is frowned upon... So I'd recommend we consider "the whole idea of a [neighborhood] wiki is basically to be open and inclusive [of information and opinions that further the neighborhood's improvement]." Notice I did not say growth. Nor what improvement means. These vary by neighborhood. For example, there would be significant differences in opinion as to content if the rules are set by "real estate" and "homeowner" interests vs. renter interests. Perhaps "Midtown" has a minuscule residential renter constituency and is appropriately represented by big real estate. But without guidelines, renter interests will be marginalized in most areas. Tom Lowenhaupt 00:28, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
Again, I would say that you are putting the cart before the horse. The way that wikis grow is organic, crossing bridges when they appear. If conflicts arise they will have to be dealt with, out of that guidelines will arise. While our purpose(s) are not identical, we can take advantage of the wide experience of the development of Wikipedia and other wikis, rather than having to start from first principles. That said, I believe that we should clearly stick to the neutral point of view principle, excepting discussions & user pages, as is the norm. Further exceptions, such as promotional pages, can be considered as they arise. Wwwhatsup 16:36, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
We should probably hold off on the issue of real estate boosterists until that actually proves to be a problem. Surprisingly enough, on Wikipedia the amateur enthusiasts have always so far been able to outman and overpower the assorted spammers.--Pharos 13:35, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Links to Wikipedia to open in new tab

One of my concerns about imported Wikipedia pages is that NYCwiki effectively becomes a portal into Wikipedia if one follows any of the links in such a page, and an exit from NYCwiki without any direct link back. Would it be possible for links to Wikipedia to open in a new tab, and perhaps have a different colour for the link, so that one could distinguish between links into NYCwiki from links to Wikipedia? Robert Pollard 11:12, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

One of the older forks, Wikinfo, used to have "green links" colored as such when they went to Wikipedia articles (it also had this great system for auto-importing from Wikipedia; both features seem to have been discontinued). I agree that as time goes on, we want to have a rather higher proportion on internal linking within NYCwiki.--Pharos 13:15, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
We do have a choice - either leave non-NYCwiki links broken, delete the links, or link to wikipedia. One simple solution would be to make them external links, but I think we already went the other way on that. The color thing could be done manually, but I don't see an automatic method (better programmers than myself might). I also don't know any method to make them open in a new tab. My sense is that, over time, the situation will ameliorate. An integral part of making/updating wiki pages has always been to search for other mentions and ensure that they link in, an iterative process. Wwwhatsup 14:11, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Captcha box

Joly, I am having to use the Captcha box for all my edits containing new urls; it doesn't bother me much, but I thought I only had to do it once (per session?) Robert Pollard

It's set on default - according to the spec it is just triggered by
  • New user registration
  • Anonymous edits that contain new external links
  • Brute-force password cracking
I'll do some checking. Wwwhatsup 21:23, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

Governance of the NYCwiki

(Questions posed by Tom Lowenhaupt originally on Community Portal)

  • Who decides what information goes in a neighborhood and what doesn't?
There is a well established consensus process in wiki editing. Wwwhatsup 01:33, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
  • Do neighborhoods have different guidelines on appropriate content?
Every page can have different guidelines, as long as there is consensus. Wwwhatsup 01:33, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
Maybe as we go on, we do want to develop more style guidelines, on an analogy with w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Perhaps something at NYCwiki:Neighborhoods/Style?--Pharos 13:31, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Real Names

Jumping ahead hear again (sorry Joly), but the use of real names for discussions has many benefits (e.g., And I'm wondering what the transition costs will be like if we move to that model? If it's difficult, perhaps we should consider implementing real names sooner rather than later. Perhaps as a "suggestion" at this point. (Also, note that real does not preclude anonymous.) Tom Lowenhaupt 02:11, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Blog comments and wiki editing are rather horses of a different color. In particular, I don't think that the BCC 4 link about extremist rants in blog comments applies so much to things that are more about an educational/informational neutral viewpoint, rather than about "my personal opinions on everything". There are some other virtues to real names, though, and also some negatives, it's definitely something we should be thinking about.--Pharos 20:23, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
I think the reason that real names are not important in a wiki context is that content stands or falls by it's intrinsic validity, accuracy, and neutrality. The relative anonymity of user names emphasizes that, it's not who says it, it is what is said. Wikis while providing plenty of room for discussion of the task and topics on hand, are ultimately about building repositories of information that transcend personality. Wwwhatsup 03:28, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Potential New Major Projects

Please have a look at the NYCwiki:Voter and NYCwiki:Community pages.--Pharos 20:25, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

links/ descriptions should be added on the Community Portal. Wwwhatsup 19:16, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
OK, I've added something brief there.--Pharos 23:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Desirable Neighborhood Content

In addition to the localpedia of history, places, people, retail, buildings, monuments, etc. the following features will make it worthwhile to come back, i.e., to make it an effective place where the community lives, where you gotta be to know what's going on, and to have an impact. Tom Lowenhaupt 01:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

For now though, the localpedia is our strong point and we should emphasize it. Tom Lowenhaupt 8-2-10

A neighborhood "events" calendar. Park events, plays, public hearings, civic meetings, block parties... Tom Lowenhaupt 12:17, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

An "issues listing" enabling geo-labeling of problems and opportunities affecting a neighborhood or a portion thereof. It should include a rating feature to gauge the importance of the issue "check here if you think this is important." Each event should have a "keep me informed" feature. Tom Lowenhaupt 01:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Weather info. Tom Lowenhaupt 01:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Google alerts type info., geo coded. Tom Lowenhaupt 01:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

I guess these would all be things that we would need MediaWiki extensions for.--Pharos 10:59, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
While there is no reason not to implement an events calendar and other resources, our effort should be, at this phase of the project, to build a comprehensive and coherent directory of existing sources. We can regard such capabilities as intrinsic to NYCwiki 2.0. Wwwhatsup 19:27, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
I agree. But are we getting enough play from those interested in contributing to the neighborhood wikis? Someone adopting a neighborhood calendar could make it a reason to come back, and then perhaps to add some local content. Time sensitive info of any sort might do this, not just the calendar. Tom Lowenhaupt 16:28, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Generally speaking in wikis, once one has a quorum of contributors - something I'd say we are lacking at present - just building the wiki is enough to make people come back. Having a watchlist pegged to email gives one constant reminders of when pages are updated. Did you manage to set that up? Wwwhatsup 16:50, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

Request for extension: oversight

Would it be possible to add the oversight extension? Also, we should enable RevisionDelete while we're at it. Sincerely, Blurpeace 11:11, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

YesY Done, but I'm not sure for what purpose it might be required. Wwwhatsup 20:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
I've been given "Oversighter" and "Oversights". A bug? Blurpeace 09:04, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Well you asked for both extensions, and they appear to function separately. It says that RevisionDelete is a slightly later version, shall I knock it down to just that one? Wwwhatsup 15:30, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

I've removed the older extension. Wwwhatsup 03:14, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Nabe of the week

Perhaps we should move along. Harlem ? Wwwhatsup 20:07, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Sounds reasonable to me. I've been doing some work on splitting and formatting the article to NYCwiki standard. Blurpeace 09:06, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
Sounds like a good idea to me; I've been sorting through & cleaning up the DCP & DOE data sets that I found at's datamine - - and will focus on the facilities in Harlem. Robert Pollard 13:29, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Alright, it's onto Harlem then! We have a new Neighborhood of the Extended Week :)--Pharos 21:43, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

NYCwiki:Style guide

I've created what will eventually be the project's primary style guidelines for article construction. Collaboration and development are very much welcome. Blurpeace 09:08, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Where? Tom Lowenhaupt 16:30, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
The title of the topic above is the link. NYCwiki:Style guide Wwwhatsup 16:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Good start on this. I've move it to NYCwiki:Neighborhoods/Style (of course the redirect still works too).--Pharos 22:06, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Image uploading

There's a problem right now with image uploads. Was working but now not. Slightly inexplicable. I'm working on it. Feel free to test and report. Wwwhatsup 06:19, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Cross fingers. I think I have fixed it. Feel free to test and report. Wwwhatsup 01:29, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

Now IPv6 accessible

NYCwiki is now IPv6 accessible! In case you are wondering our IPv6 address is 2607:F298:0001:0105:0000:0000:0D10:B9C5

Personal tools

Flagship Projects