I did pin the topic for 2 weeks. 21.Dec.2023
I’m not sure my use fits exactly into documentation site or not 
I primarily use mine as a personal wiki for my writing projects, keeping track of connections between characters, settings, and events.
Which means I use templates to build dossier / fandom styled profiles for the characters, create shortcuts between tiddlers that are relative to one another, such as x character during y event, etc., templates for in-story documents for reference or drawing web graphs to visualize what impacts what else.
My task management is handled by outlook, since I don’t think TiddlyWiki can interact with emails or calendars connected to MS or Google (otherwise I’d happily make TW my one stop shop.)
Yes, I think this should be another high-level choice:
- Writer’s organizational tool (for novels, articles, essays, and more)
5 Likes
I think I would agree with that, I come from a MS office and scrivener background, so a literary organizational tool fits that description well. However, creating something as a template for that could be a bit tricky in the long run, since it’s highly subjective in how an author categorizes their works.
For instance, I can tell you that my grouping of topics is far from the norm when in comparison to fantasy authors.
If a template were to be made for that, making tabs macros and character sheet templates would need to be readily accessible, kind of like what’s seen with some of the D&D / Pathfinder TiddlyWiki floating about on the web
Speaking of, TTRPG may be another category? though I suppose it could fit as a sub category of a project planner or literature tool
1 Like
While I agree that is likely, I think we will need to settle that questions sooner rather than later. I’m hoping we settle it by agreeing to build a useful community edition with enough features that most new users would find it functional. No, more than that, they would fine it smooth. I would expect that the UI offers that one first, but also has “Or see J-J-Journal by Mohammad, Live(ish)Journal by Springer, PermaNotes by pmario, … or Techno Diary by TW_Tones.”
I think such community-supported editions should chiefly have the changes necessary to make it work correctly and look right. They should not be bogged down with tools that they might need. Ideally, they would collectively show off the power of TW, but individually we want the community editions to be simple enough that their features can be demonstrated in, say, one thousand words. (Absolutely making up the number, but the idea should be clear.) This does not apply at all to the user-supplied ones. They might get voted up and down the list of alternatives (and possibly enough downvotes keeps them off, since we don’t want to embarrass ourselves.) But they can exhibit much more complex behaviors and sophisticated combinations of features.
For instance, one or two topics might demonstrate the use of an alternate layout. But most of them shouldn’t. A few might need a custom search widget, but not the majority.
Part of the reason for this is that I think of these serving a secondary goal of showing off TW’s flexibility. The individual community editions – I think that term is already claimed; perhaps “demo editions” – serve to get a user going in the right direction; they show the depth. But the collection of them demonstrate most important TW features; together they show the breadth. Combining breadth and depth in individual wikis will simply scare off all but the most adventurous.
Of course, it’s a direction we can take. But it seems to me that whoever volunteers for this job would have a very demanding job on his hands, if he had to do it alone (even with the help of the “tourists”).
In my opinion we should at least try to do something together. We discuss how we should do it first, perhaps presenting some plans or examples and then everyone takes on a task. Then the solutions will be combined (but this should be done with good communication so we don’t step on each other’s toes).
It could actually be difficult to coordinate. But I would say we should try. If we see that it’s a task that is best done alone, we’ll take that direction, but I’d say that should be plan B.
And it goes without saying that the volunteer should also be an expert user…
For example, I would be more than happy to do my part in the construction of one or more editions, but I could never, inexperienced as I am, manage a public model.
However, if we embarked on a “collective” project I could present some of my solutions and help find them, those would be tasks within my reach. Furthermore, by working together we will more easily find out which things really matter and which are not particular solutions suitable for just one person.
I thought about it as a possible response to the poll, but I must have forgotten. I would say consider it as part of “Note-taking”?
Unfortunately the poll after 15 minutes cannot be changed, so I can’t add the option. But I would have voted for that too. (personally I would consider it part of note-taking, however I will add a note to the main post)
1 Like
I had a thought. Can we make a tiddlywiki tiddlywiki-builder? something where you go to the wiki, check boxes for how you plan to use it, what features, buttons, templates, palettes, alt layouts, you would like to have, and then click generate?
something like, and excuse my odd choice of reference, VanillaTweaks for minecraft resource packs? they built a site to create custom modular resource packs, and TW could do the same I’d imagine.
Then we don’t need to build and maintain multiple different kinds of TW, we just make sure to follow preset guidelines to make the options cross compatible. now you don’t have to worry about a writers tool having that one thing you like that the project planner doesn’t, etc.
Preset groups of modular options could be things like “I’m a writer” so it auto checks others under it’s category.
1 Like
The only edition I’ll ever use (well, who knows what the future holds) is empty.html
I don’t know if that’s worth explicitly adding to the list of editions
My primary use case for TiddlyWiki is creating browser-based applications (not web applications, which I consider different). TiddlyWiki is my rapid application development tool (whether just to create prototype applications or to create end-product browser-based applications.)
My secondary use-case is intertwingularity slicing and dicing (aka intertwingularity mapping, like textual mind-mapping vs graphical mind-mapping) when things do not fit well in a neat and tidy hierarchy.
1 Like
Just to clarify: are we meant to be voting for
- Ways we personally use TW?
- Use cases we assume would be most popular?
- Most commonly implemented or desired use cases we have seen personally?
- Editions that seem hypothetically useful (or in need of special support), whether or not we have or would ever use them?
- Something else?
I think that will be an ongoing theme. One of the joys of TW is that you don’t have to settle for anyone’s idea of a one-size-fits-all tool. But we still have to present something.
One perhaps useful technique would be for us to use something familiar for each example. Perhaps a novel-prep wiki would be as if it were from Lewis Carol as he writes Alice in Wonderland (has the advantage of being public domain.) And academic article might be a famous one from Kant—care to help with that @Springer? 
—or Einstein.
1 Like
Could be done, I would not recommend it.
It would require testing every combination/permutation imaginable, every time there is a new TiddlyWiki version and every time there is a new version of a plugin.
For a new user building their own custom edition, it will sour their experience to spend that effort and have something that does not work.
Better, I think, to have a few editions, and each new edition tested when it needs to be for the purpose/scope intended.
I would say: How do I use (or would like to use) Tiddlywiki?
But if you feel it is useful to vote for a category because you really think it could be useful for some users even if not for you personally, go ahead.
1 Like
I think it will. My suggestion from the earlier thread would put that prominently as the final offering:
1 Like
I would say no.
The “empty” will always remain the default version. The others edition come after. So there’s no need to put it on the list. (But in reality this is just a question of presentation, so it may be good to add)
I don’t imagine this to really be the case. Afterall, TiddlyWiki on it’s own is modular in how it works, where different parts rely on one or several other macros, widgets, etc.
If the same general format is followed when creating the parts, it avoids the risk of things being incompatible. For instance, the palettes we have already in TW don’t all use the same color values, some use entirely different values, which results in issues.
It would also mean that, instead of multiple versions to try to keep up to date, you just need to check if the parts (I’m not sure what to call them, lets go with tidbits 
) just need to be tested. maybe just throwing a TW with all of them on it into one of the updaters and seeing what breaks.
It could even be just a plugin pack you could grab right when you start an empty.html
I just imagine that, with enough different versions, eventually some are going to get left behind, or run more outdated than others.
1 Like
i’d personally classify that under “world-building” which is something i have used TW for that doesn’t seem to be in the list?
1 Like
I don’t want to put words in Charlie’s mouth, but I had a similar concern. Since nearly all the preexisting parts that a user could choose to plug in have been produced and maintained by individual developers, there’s some inevitable idiosyncrasy in the data structures they assume, and using them together often involves some reconfiguring. (This is a regular topic here at TalkTW: How do I get this plugin to work with this specific edition, when they were made by different people, for different core versions?) So unless we want to recreate a lot of established solutions, I’m not sure we can reasonably guarantee that plugins chosen a la carte will work together smoothly, or that they’ll continue to work with a later version of the core.
This is not to say that I don’t like the idea of an a la carte component list that doesn’t require a new user to discover all the relevant plugin libraries on their own. But I do think it may need to come with a “buyer beware”.
Well, I would imagine it would take us to decide on what will be the starting edition of TW to have the components be based on, before updating them to work on future versions.
When I imagine how something like this would work, I imagine something similar to how @EricShulman’s TiddlyTools website is, however you bring up a valid point about multiple developers working with multiple formatting and design philosophies, and that’s where I feel like laying down the standards for each one of the components comes into play.
Making sure that specific guidelines are met, and that preexisting code snippets are used means that you don’t have to spend extra time reinventing the wheel, unless otherwise necessary, and also means that anything that worked with the original source of the code will now work with where you pulled it from.
Naturally, things will break, there is no getting around that as newer editions and newer functions are introduced, so making note of which sets of features work with which version is key.
VanillaTweaks does it by MC version, and we could do the same, and while those might be unsupported for a time, getting them to work could mean reintroducing them.
In that case, I’ll vote for “note-taking” as you advised Justin, though I agree that “worldbuilding” would be more accurate. I’ll also rep the somewhat larger TW-for-TTRPGs community on Discord (and Reddit? I know @intrinsical has shared his showcase/starter edition there before).
And, while I’m not sure how to classify it in the poll, I’d also like to vote for a more “traditional” wiki—a knowledge base (potentially multi-user) that looks more like Wikipedia or a Fandom wiki, even if it leverages Tiddlywiki features behind the scenes. I think this is a pretty common goal among potential users vetting TW; I’ve seen a number of new users asking how to make a Wikipedia-style infobox, for instance.
1 Like
Another vote for ”Other”, as in ”Writer’s tool (TTRPG)”, simply as a nod to that being my primary use of TW since around 2010.
But it sure is a good writer’s tool in more general terms, as well!
1 Like