Categorising wiki pages

[PeterT]

I am starting to restructure the wiki - first step being to sort out a heirachy of wiki page categories (which relates to the site map.

If creating new pages please use these new categories.

PeterT

[Kathy Schomer]

That's not a site map. It's not even followable, and you once again forgot to disable spellcheck before taking the snapshot. Not to mention that not all the boxes go anywhere.

Site maps look more like this.

[PeterT]

That's not a site map. It's not even followable, and you once again forgot to disable spellcheck before taking the snapshot. Not to mention that not all the boxes go anywhere.

Site maps look more like this.

I agree it needs more work!

Must say I think our 'map' is prettier (and more map like) than the one you link to which looks like a list to me - though I suspect you may be right in saying that the one you link to is more typical of web site maps. Of course, being an academic my 'natural' inclination is to question whether that means they are necessarily best. 

I am starting to try to sort out some bits of the website - and the map is one of those things on my hit list ... (though I like pictures and so it is likely to stay more like a picture than a list I suspect) - of course there is nothing to stop someone else creating an alternative map - indeed I am tempted to do that myself (but my alternative would be even more confusing I suspect ...)

Ho hum ... 

[Kathy Schomer]

Okay then, maps look more like this then.

And yes, they are best type of mamp. They quite clearly show what is part of what and where you might find it. It is not all that unusual for such maps to contain the same item under different headings. To be honest, they don't really need a site map anyway for most purposes due to their extremely good search (example - try typing "iPhone" without pressing enter).

You drew an incomprehensible diagram. It doesn't map the site at all, it shows the structure of nothing obvious. I now know that ASPIRE has no relation to the Aspire Project (apart from sitting next to it), and is sort of not really related to ICT. Well, thanks for that insight.

 Your other bizarre site maps (e.g. the Aspire Project) are even more incomprehensible. That and they got deleted yesterday, apparently by mistake.

[PeterT]

Okay then, maps look more like this then.

And yes, they are best type of mamp. They quite clearly show what is part of what and where you might find it. It is not all that unusual for such maps to contain the same item under different headings. To be honest, they don't really need a site map anyway for most purposes due to their extremely good search (example - try typing "iPhone" without pressing enter).

You drew an incomprehensible diagram. It doesn't map the site at all, it shows the structure of nothing obvious. I now know that ASPIRE has no relation to the Aspire Project (apart from sitting next to it), and is sort of not really related to ICT. Well, thanks for that insight.

 Your other bizarre site maps (e.g. the Aspire Project) are even more incomprehensible. That and they got deleted yesterday, apparently by mistake.

 lol !

[Achilles Schomer]

Having looked at the diagram you'd need a degree to understand it

[Kathy Schomer]

Which is exactly why they don't let people with degrees design things.

[Topper Schomer]

ii can just bout get my head round but i am more confused about the site before and the wiggly l#microsoft lines make it look nproofishanal

Topper

[Achilles Schomer]

nproofishanal

That is the most unique spelling of professional I've seen-Indeed precisely none of the letters are in the correct position

[Topper Schomer]

Unprofessional

Topper