From WikiIndex
Jump to: navigation, search

I am not really feeling the need to delete this page. The stated reason that WikiIndex is not an encyclopedia does not resonate with me. WikiIndex is about Wiki, Wiki Ideas and WikiPeople. CamelCase is clearly a wiki idea as it was the primary way to create links in the 6 years prior to Wikipedia and the initial year of that projects history. ~~ MarkDilley

I checked the history of the page and that part was added in 2006, during the onslaught of people thinking that Wikipedia was the way to run a wiki. I think the intention of that statement is WikiIndex is not Wikipedia, in terms of its culture. - Anyone else around that remembers that? Best, MarkDilley
I filed this deletion request before I noticed the bigger concept of "wiki ideas" you started. I think it's okay to remove the template until we found a solution for that. To me, your "wiki ideas" just look like guidelines or best practises, that should be mentioned in the WikiIndex namespace and explained on wikipedia. They are meta information, not content, and therefore shouldn't be in the main space. --Bachsau 00:06, 30 June 2012 (PDT)
The idea I have about Wiki is different than Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is a product. That idea is that everything in the wiki, how the wiki is run, is part of the content, i.e. Wikis, WikiPeople and wiki ideas. My preference is for a flat wiki, like OddMuse. Best, MarkDilley
This needs keeping, though this article needs moving to the 'WikiIndex:' namespace. I'll delete the 'delete' tag! Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 07:57, 9 September 2012 (PDT)
Don't think it needs to be moved to the WikiIndex namespace - it is a core Wiki function, historically and for some wiki software. ~~ MarkDilley
Hmmmmm . . . I think we'll have to agree to disagree on ^^^ that. Personally, I think CamelCase might be prevalent in American english (because American english seems to capitalise the first letter of many words), but in other languages (including non-American english variants) capitalisation is considerably more restrained. And I'm not at all sure CC is used in Wikipedia - which is arguably the mother of all wikis (especially relating to editing activity). So I'm finding it difficult to agree that CamelCase is a "core wiki function" - though I confess my wiki expertise really is only with MediaWiki/Wikia. Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 15:04, 12 September 2012 (PDT)
Yes, :-) - I think that it is very arguable that Wikipedia is the mother of all wikis. I would go with the most popular. WikiWikiWeb is the mother / father / first one - that counts. It is an amazing wiki. Spurred several different studies of computing with world wide popular conferences and changed the way universities taught computer programing. CamelCase is core in that is the linking convention of the first wikis, including the first year of Wikipedia. check out my LinkLanguage --> Best, MarkDilley
I think we all agree on the fact that CamelCase was a historically notable concept, and it still isn't obsolete in certain circles, such as software development — many MediaWiki extensions, for example, have a CamelCase name, as it's practical (spaces can cause issues in directory/file names and underscores are, well, somewhat annoying).
It's also a historical fact that WikiWikiWeb was the first wiki site; and, IMHO, that's why it's notable. However, Wikipedia is largely to be thanked for popularizing the concept of a wiki, in my view. It might not have been the very first wiki, but it definitely is the most notable one.
The CamelCase concept was scrapped in favor of free-form links, because in the early days of Wikipedia, it was decided that CamelCase isn't flexible enough for the needs of an encyclopedia project. While I recognize the historical importance of the concept, I'm very much inclined to agree with that statement. If I were to create a page about the state for which the current president is Barack Obama, why on Earth would I name it "UnitedStatesOfAmerica" when its name is "United States of America"?
With MediaWiki's engine and linking syntax, one can type something like "Barack Obama is the [[president]] of the [[United States of America]]" to create links to the pages "president" and "United States of America", respectively. I'm not very familiar with UseMod Wiki and whatnot, but you'd have to type "Barack Obama is the president of the UnitedStatesOfAmerica" to get a link to the page about the United States and I'm not sure if it'd even be possible to link the word "president" to the same page. Maybe the UseMod Wiki software has a free-form linking syntax, similar to that of MediaWiki's?
All that being said, using CamelCase syntax on a MediaWiki-based wiki, where it is neither required nor usually wanted, feels rather silly to me. Admittedly I'm biased, as I've been a MediaWiki developer for years and I consider MediaWiki superior to other wiki engines in pretty much any and all respects. (And I guess that's partially true, because Wikipedia — which uses MediaWiki — is one of the world's most popular websites; how many other wiki sites, especially those using alternative wiki engines, are in the top 50? Or top 100? Or even top 1000?)
I would recommend considering the CamelCase syntax deprecated on WikiIndex and using normal English spelling where appropriate. MediaWiki and WikiIndex, for example, are product names intentionally spelled in CamelCase. However, the category page which lists wikis that require logging in in order to edit should not be called "LoginToEdit", but rather "Login to edit" (or should we want to be more verbose, "Wikis that require login in order to edit").
Redirects are cheap, so let's utilize their full potential! Redirects also help in implementing Sir Berners-Lee's concept of cool URIs, which don't change. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2012 (PDT)
Jack, you've highlighted some important points, and expressed them very eloquently. :) I'd agree that CamelCase should be depreciated here on WikiIndex - for main namespace articles - unless there are any wikis which specifically have CamelCase names. But I'd be extremely cautious of sending all instances of CamelCase to Room 101. Just like MW extensions, templates are a good candiate for using CamelCase, and they should stay CamelCase if it helps other less experienced editors.
However, for category naming conventions, whilst I fully agree with your sentiment that we should be using long-hand english, I personally think our established CamelCase names for edit modes work OK - they are generally only used to render an infobox, and infoboxes are generally full of abbreviations and acronymns. When they are used in prose text, they can be simply piped with the correct english spelling if needed. And whilst I respect the principle of redirects, I personally don't like them - I think they look lazy, and by overly relying on redirects, you then run the risk of creating double redirects - which fail to follow on. Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 07:06, 5 October 2012 (PDT)

Jack, I understand that you, as a MediaWiki person, feel it is silly for a MediaWiki wiki to use CamelCase. The point here is that while Wikipedia is the most popular wiki "product" in the world - it is far from the most superior wiki engine. I would feel comfortable in saying that if it weren't for CamelCase, wiki may not have taken off for the six years, and one year of Wikipedia. Best, MarkDilley

"MediaWiki . . . is far from the most superior wiki engine" – that's a powerful statement! If you genuinely feel that is true, why are we using MW for WikiIndex? <confused> Which wiki engines do you feel are superior to MediaWiki?
Whilst I understand and respect your personal opinion on Wikipeda, I feel you are not understanding that wiki editors of 2012 are not the same as wiki editors of 2006. I would guess that the overwealming majority of todays' wikis only know MediaWiki, be that a cause/effect of the Wikipedia issue, or otherwise. The vast majority of wiki editors today will probably think that the only way to edit a wiki (especially a MediaWiki wiki) will be the 'Wikipedia way' - which does not include CamelCase. Whatever your personal preferences are, you can't 'un-invent the wheel', and weather we like it or not, we can't un-invent the Wikipedia way. Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 01:18, 8 October 2012 (PDT)