Talk:TiddlyWiki

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

JavaScript Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject JavaScript, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to JavaScript, and to the development of user scripts for use on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaScriptWikipedia:WikiProject JavaScriptTemplate:WikiProject JavaScriptJavaScript articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

2019-11: there seems to be a bit more Documentation focus.

this is happening within the main user group Community at googleGroups
links can be added here.

2018-08: Page enhancement discussions

preliminary discussions regarding the need to update this very dated page have resumed in the active community Google Group.
- one preliminary task is the development of a strategy to effectively communicate the significant recent changes of the past several years.

HwO 16:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

suggestions:
- link to ...
  - "Wiki software (comparison charts)
  - Wiki_software
  - other wikipedia pages that can legitimately link to this TiddlyWiki page.

HwO 18:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Link to emerging community resources, such as ...
- the existing Editions
- Dave Giffords TW resources @ ...
- GitHub ( ... )
- ...

Consider using subPages to suppress lesser content.
...

HwO 13:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

progress towards the Federation goal is sufficient to suggest pausing.

HwO 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

checking for progress since this page was mentioned again recently in GoogleGroups.

HwO 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

added a link to an outstanding example of what can be achieved.

HwO 21:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The screenshot is extremely poor

Focusing on such a narrow piece of the software (an unformatted edit box) is unwise. In fact, the current image may give the first-glance impression that TiddlyWiki operates in some command-line manner, with no formatting, independent page functionality, dynamic content, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.114.26 (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Above comment no longer applicable. It refers to a version of this article in which a tiddler screenshot was the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.218.125 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the huge link list

I took out the huge link list and left only the most important. I left a link to the plugin repository that contains all of the mentioned plugins and more. Please revert if you disagree. --193.64.21.2 11:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Jan 7 I reverted the page to include only some of the links above, but someone quickly reverted them back. Certain individuals seem determined to remove these links. I appreciate that Wikipedia is not a link repository. There are other sites designed for that. But in the case of TiddlyWiki the program has a high initial learning curve, so it would be good to link tutorials, at the very minimum. I am not going to revert again to include the links. But if others of you want to learn more about TiddlyWiki without frazzling your brain, try http://www.giffmex.org/twfortherestofus.html for my simple entry-level tutorial. This tutorial also contains many links to other TiddlyWiki tutorials and plugins. Giffmex 18:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think a lot of these links are very helpful for understanding what TiddlyWiki is all about. Stephen C. Carlson 04:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also personally think a lot of these links are very helpful for understanding what TiddlyWiki is all about. Why the hell would you want to remove information from wikipedia ?? The whole point of an encyclopedia is to centralize and share knowledge, not to hide information ... Marc Castejon 02 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a link to a repository of links of various TiddlyWikis. This should keep to a minimum the number of links attempted on this page, does not violate the external link policy, and is a helpful resource for anyone reading the article and wanting to see what a TiddlyWiki is and does. Whoever keeps removing the links, please read this and consider before reverting. Giffmex 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the links again, as the majority opinion here supports their presence. The policy referred to is insufficient justification for deleting links en masse. If someone wishes to remove links, they should make some effort to distinguish those which are "meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article" from those which are not. --194.46.97.121 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of useful information about Tiddlywiki in the German version, which perhaps some kind person could incorporate into this version. I will give it a go myself next week, but my German is weak. Albertde 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey UTC, if you're going to revert the links, don't forget to include the links on the version of the page you are removing. You deleted my TiddlyWiki in Action link. I am going to add it here, without removing the current links. Giffmex 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! --194.46.97.121 08:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand why the link to the UnaMensa page was removed as a blatant copyright violation. UnaMensa owns the IP rights to TiddlyWiki as shown here: http://tiddlywiki.projects.unamesa.org/

Also when saying that there are to many external links have you looked to see how many of them are reference materials, as there are no books to use as a reference for this subject? 71.85.196.144 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent attempt to add an overwhelming number of external links - personally, I'm hard-pressed to see significant value beyond the 1 external link to the product itself. As a previous revert of this mass-addition stated, Wikipedia is not a directory. Please comment if you can identify an external link that adds value to the article, but not every example and every reference guide can be shown.Cander0000 (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some external links, but only to instances and uses of TiddlyWiki which are interesting, given how different TiddlyWiki is to many other wikis and single page applications. Now in the process of adding more authoritative references to explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psd (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plugins repository (http://plugins.tiddlywiki.org/plugins) is a vital link. Furthermore, it should be noted that plugins like tiddlers bar can greatly alter the wiki's tiddler display paradigm. In fact, the plugin repository is so diverse that TiddlyWiki is often used as a CMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.114.26 (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

block quote

Hi. Just a note here about italicizing the block quote. That seems right to me, but I haven't had time to check the guidelines on that stuff -- seems to me I've seen that done here and there. Anyway, it seems better to me. Bacrito (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations to Tiddly Wiki

I found this one that provides the same interface (and is based on TW itself) yet lives on a Apache/PHP server.

http://tiddlyhome.bidix.info/#GettingStarted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.229.167 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Guerilla wiki"

What is that?

85.97.171.201 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too, glad someone else has commented about it. It seems to be a neologism which only appears prominently on one other site, itself a wiki. I'm not sure it's a helpful addition to the article, just confusing, so I'm going to remove it. Although I'll keep the aforementioned wiki page as a reference. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to other websites

I removed a mass of external links which I think blurred the message. Now, the entire article appears to link to various outside places. I am not convinced at all that all these external links are necessary. Anthere (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancement thoughts

Tags are fundamentally important to the development and use of TiddlyWiki. Therefore, I am thinking of adding a supporting section to the page in the near future (early 2017).
Extensive support for many natural languages may also worth noting.

HwO 13:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC) HansWobbe

Replaced the use of "sections" to refer to tiddlers with "components".

I did this to reduce the potential for confusion that might arise since tiddlers frequently contain blocks referred to as "sections", that are delimited by the use of headings. HansWobbe.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TiddlyWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150124055113/http://tiddlywiki.com:80/editions/translators/ to http://tiddlywiki.com/editions/translators/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TiddlyWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527164201/http://itw.bidix.info:80/ to http://itw.bidix.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.

Where to list JavaScript articles

We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts

The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!

If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention

If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.

Rating JavaScript articles

At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Applications and Plugins sections

I think the Plugins section should be moved to the Applications section. The Plugins section is pretty short and the content that is there wouldn't be out of place in the Applications section. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

The article contains a lot of original research and needs to be cleaned up. It seems to be the worst in the File Saving section. I've had to remove references that don't support the article's claims. For example, a reference to the ActiveX FileSystemObject documentation doesn't support the claim that TiddlyWiki uses it to save the file for Internet Explorer. Same goes for the MDN article on Mozilla File I/O - doesn't have anything to do with TiddlyWiki. Honestly it might be that this whole section just needs to be deleted for being undue weight.

Besides the original research, the article relies heavily on primary sources. But it has already been said that this may be due to the "guerilla wiki" aspect of the subject. Still, I've tried to replace primary sources with reliable secondary sources when I've found some.

Lastly, it looks like the article's most active editor is someone who has disclosed a relationship with the article's subject. Care should be taken to make sure the article has a neutral point of view clear of any conflicts of interest. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about cleaning up the File Saving section, and sympathise with the problem of OR within the topic. I do want to note though that your first removal in this edit block was https://atlas-disciplines.unige.ch/, stating "Remove WP:OR - source does not mention TiddlyWiki" - but it does in fact mention TiddlyWiki - albiet not in the rendered page, but it's credited as being run on TiddlyWiki multiple times in the first few lines of the source (including multiple meta tags). I think that page has value as being a great example of an applied Tiddlywiki online - something that is otherwise quite rare due to the nature of the software. …/NemoThorx (💬 • 📜) 13:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that the web page used Tiddlywiki since I did check the source before removing the sentence. But since the web page does not explicitly mention Twiddlywiki, it's still OR. If you're asking someone to view the page source and understand what different tags mean, which requires specialized knowledge, that's OR by definition. The page should clearly state the fact being cited, see WP:PROVEIT: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Even better, we should use a reliable independent reference to support the claim, like an interview with a Tiddlywiki expert unaffiliated with the site. Without that, I'll have to insist on the claim being removed. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, fair enough. I feel given the nature of tiddlywiki that it may be one of those areas that strictly adhering to no OR actually hurts the article quality. But that's only presented as idle thought, not a declaration of editwar or anything …/NemoThorx (💬 • 📜) 13:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]