WikiIndex talk:How do categories work: Difference between revisions

From WikiIndex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(additional wikilinks, stylistic formatting for easier reading)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOCright}}
{{Talk header}}{{TOC right}}
==[[Template:Tag|tag template]] or category==
==[[Template:Tag|tag template]] or category==
Use tag or category template when you want it to show in the article in addition to the bottom category section, else normal category command is fine --[[Raymond King]] | <small>[[User talk:Rathbone|talk]]</small> 17:34, 12 Feb 2006 (EST)
Use tag or category template when you want it to show in the article in addition to the bottom category section, else normal category command is fine --[[Raymond King]] | <small>[[User talk:Rathbone|talk]]</small> 17:34, 12 Feb 2006 (EST)
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?==

Latest revision as of 21:12, 19 December 2022

this talk page is for discussing improvements to the WikiIndex:How do categories work article

tag template or category[edit]

Use tag or category template when you want it to show in the article in addition to the bottom category section, else normal category command is fine --Raymond King | talk 17:34, 12 Feb 2006 (EST)

tag / category news[edit]

  • The Template:Tag {{tag|CATEGORYNAME}} command works fine in-line. You can use this when wanting to link to a category from within the description.
  • The MediaWiki category feature [[Category:CATEGORYNAME]] can be used for any tags categories that do not appear in the text. These categories go at the end of the entry.
Bulleted list of tags is not necessary, but if someone wants to use them, there should be no problem with that. MarkDilley | talk

questions[edit]

I've read much of what has been added here since my last contribution. I'm puzzled at the sentence "You can use these when wanting to link to a category from within the description":

  1. How do we use them?
  2. To "to link to a category from within the description" you just put a colon in front of it, eg [[:category:all]].

robinp 16:16, 4 Apr 2006 (EDT)

Great question, Robin. The point is that we're not just linking to the category, we're putting the page in question into that category as well. We do that by simply using {{tag|CATEGORYNAME}} in the description text. If the term doesn't appear in the text, then just use [[Category:CATEGORYNAME]] at the end, as usual. TedErnst | talk 17:04, 4 Apr 2006 (EDT)

CamelCase[edit]

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? --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 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 "open source":
  • Category:OpenSource
  • 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. --MarvelZuvembie 15:17, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

Categories not working?[edit]

Argumentrix is in several categories but isn't listed within them. What's up with that? Did I do something wrong? 76.100.115.189

The way you added categories to the Argumentrix page at WikiIndex looks correct to me. They show up at the bottom of the page in the "Categories:" line, and when I click on each of them, I see "Argumentrix" listed properly on each category page. Perhaps a recent upgrade fixed whatever the problem was. If you see it again, please tell us about it. --DavidCary (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2013 (PDT)