User talk:PeterT

From EdFutures
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Trying to reach you, Peter100:14, 5 May 2016
consistency of page names502:56, 2 December 2012
Archived discussions002:52, 30 November 2012

Trying to reach you, Peter

Hi Peter,

I tried to reach you via the email in the whois records, but the email bounced. This is Larry Johnson, founder and longtime author of the NMC Horizon Reports. I've retired (just this week) and want to continue to dabble. I have a small little company (not for profit) that has the same name as your website.

I notice the edfutures.org website is not connected to anything, and your blog uses the .net version.

I wonder if you would consider transferring the .org domain to me?

Of course, I will happily cover any costs.

All the best,

Larry Johnson

Drljohnson (talk)17:15, 4 May 2016

Hi Larry.

Let's discuss this via email. I am Peter.Twining at open.ac.uk.

PeterT

PeterT (talk)00:14, 5 May 2016
 

consistency of page names

Hi, Peter, I was trying to create a separate page for each term in the Glossary page but got confused. For example, shall we call a page BYOT or Bring Your Own Technology. Perhaps, BYOT can be classified under the Acronyms category, and Bring Your Own Device under Glossary?? If so, than I can copy-paste the contents of BYOT page to Bring Your Own Technology page? Same may apply to BYOD. Also shall we use 'Digital technology' or 'Digital Technology'? Shall I also create separate page for every acronym?

HimalayanYati12:10, 29 November 2012

Separate page is called Bring Your Own Technology and contains the definition and the acronym..

When you use the acronym on another page you put this [[definition_page|acronym]] eg [[Bring Your Own Technology|BYOT]] which will display as BYOT.

You add the acronym to the glossary.

You add the full term to the glossary as embedded text using {{:definition_page}} eg {{:bring Your Own Technology}}</nowiki}}

PeterT00:24, 30 November 2012

Thank you Peter. I will play around and see.

HimalayanYati10:42, 30 November 2012

I have been playing around with both the glossary, acronyms and how to reference articles.

See

  • Glossary - the ICT and Information Communication Technology entries for example, which link to
Information and Communication Technology

PeterT

PeterT11:04, 30 November 2012

I think what I am confused about is not about linking 'article or definition page' to other related pages, as you have shown above, but about how category hierarchy works. For example, when I assign an acronym (e.g. BYOT) page to Glossary Category, I can see BYOT listed under the Glossary category but not Bring Your Own Technology even though BYOT page is linked to the Bring Your Own Technology page with {{:Bring Your Own Technology}}</nowiki}} tag. But when I add 'Glossary' tag to 'definition/article page (e.g., Bring Your Own Technology), I see Bring Your Own Technology as well as BYOT listed under the Glossary category. Also if we are to assign acronyms to Glossary category, then do we need Acronyms category as a subcategory of Glossary?

HimalayanYati12:11, 30 November 2012

Something only gets listed on a category page if the [[Category:category_name]]</nowiki]] is included at the end of the page. This includes embedding a page which includes the category listing. To be honest I don't fully understand the difference between <nowiki>{{page name}} and {{:page name}}</ nowiki> -perhaps things to explore in our next team meeting. In the meantime I suggest NOT using category tags for acronyms or definitions. Simply manually list them on the Glossary pager. I wouldn't have a separate acronym page either - just one manually created glossary page.

PeterT02:56, 2 December 2012
 
 
 
 
 

Archived discussions

The following discussions took place before liquid threads was installed.

License?[edit]

Peter: It just occurred to me, it's not clear what (if any) license this wiki is using. I think it would be a good idea to choose one ASAP, while the editors are all still available to agree (and sign, if we want to make it legally binding). I personally recommend a license that is compatible with CC-By-SA -- such as CC-By-SA itself, or CC-By, or CC-Zero, which is the one I use whenever possible, since it maximizes potential for re-use. (See for example the waiver we used in the Peeragogy project). Arided 19:27, 9 October 2012 (BST)

PeterT 06:47, 10 October 2012 (BST)
We are using CC-By-SA. This is stated in the blurb at the bottom of every edit page, just above the save button. Perhaps it needs to be somewhere else too?
Yeah, it would be good to put it on the bottom of every rendered page, for example with an image down by the "Powered by MediaWiki" button. There's a button-chooser here: by-sa-unported-3.0 button chooser, from which I grabbed the relevant part: <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png" /> </a> Arided 22:16, 10 October 2012 (BST)
I'll have to add this to my techy wish list as I don't know how to do it. PeterT 06:45, 11 October 2012 (BST)
BTW I actually don't see anything about CC-By-SA when I go to press save. I see this: "Please note that all contributions to EdFutures may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see EdFutures:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" I could fix these things for you but I'd need access to the installation. Arided 22:44, 11 October 2012 (BST)
Hmm. It is the EdFutures:Copyrights that contains the details. I take the point that this info needs to be more prominent. Aiming to sort tetchy admin support in next few days. Ideally I want someone, or a couple of people who can do all the things on the tetchy to do list. Might you be that person? PeterT 07:02, 12 October 2012 (BST)

profession?[edit]

Question for you at Talk:The Profession. Arided 09:03, 4 October 2012 (BST)

2015[edit]

About the ICT Curriculum page: the title was originally 24-Sept-2015 NFER survey that's why I changed it! Arided 12:09, 28 September 2012 (BST)

PeterT 17:53, 28 September 2012 (BST)
No worries - good to see you being proactive. You were right in thinking that title was misleading so thank you for provoking me to make it more sensible.
PeterT02:52, 30 November 2012