Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
WikiIndex talk:How do categories work: Difference between revisions
WikiIndex talk:How do categories work (edit)
Revision as of 08:43, 18 September 2018
, 18 September 2018→CamelCase: indent
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (additional wikilinks, stylistic formatting for easier reading) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (→CamelCase: indent) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Is using [[CamelCase]] still necessary for naming the categories? Personally, I've been blithely breaking this rule. Does this break something for someone somewhere down the line? Or is this a legacy instruction? --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 21:30, 8 October 2009 (EDT) | Is using [[CamelCase]] still necessary for naming the categories? Personally, I've been blithely breaking this rule. Does this break something for someone somewhere down the line? Or is this a legacy instruction? --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 21:30, 8 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
At the time when I wrote this, I was unaware of the history of CamelCase in wikis. Having started out on [[English Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], I have tended to emulate that style and thus avoid CamelCase, as well as the gratuitous use of uppercase letters. But, even though it feels wrong to me stylistically, I now see why we would want to keep this tradition alive. And on the practical side, using this convention might help us avoid category duplication such as we have with "[[:Category:Open source|open source]]": | :At the time when I wrote this, I was unaware of the history of CamelCase in wikis. Having started out on [[English Wikipedia|Wikipedia]], I have tended to emulate that style and thus avoid CamelCase, as well as the gratuitous use of uppercase letters. But, even though it feels wrong to me stylistically, I now see why we would want to keep this tradition alive. And on the practical side, using this convention might help us avoid category duplication such as we have with "[[:Category:Open source|open source]]": | ||
:*Category:OpenSource | |||
*Category:OpenSource | :*Category:Open source | ||
*Category:Open source | :*Category:Open Source | ||
*Category:Open Source | :However, fixing all the categories which I have created which do not follow this model will be fairly labor-intensive. Hopefully, someone knows how to use a bot to do it. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 15:17, 15 March 2010 (EDT) | ||
However, fixing all the categories which I have created which do not follow this model will be fairly labor-intensive. Hopefully, someone knows how to use a bot to do it. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 15:17, 15 March 2010 (EDT) | |||
==Categories not working?== | ==Categories not working?== | ||