Bureaucrats, checkuser, interwiki, staff, Administrators
9,132
edits
Talk:CamelCase: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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 wou
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (Jack, you've highlighted some important points, and expressed them very eloquently. :)) |
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (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 wou) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
::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"?<br />With MediaWiki's engine and linking syntax, one can type something like "<nowiki>Barack Obama is the [[president]] of the [[United States of America]]</nowiki>" to create links to the pages "president" and "United States of America", respectively. I'm not very familiar with UseModWiki 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 UseModWiki software has a free-form linking syntax, similar to that of MediaWiki's? | ::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"?<br />With MediaWiki's engine and linking syntax, one can type something like "<nowiki>Barack Obama is the [[president]] of the [[United States of America]]</nowiki>" to create links to the pages "president" and "United States of America", respectively. I'm not very familiar with UseModWiki 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 UseModWiki 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?) | :: 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").<br />[[mw:Help:Redirects|Redirects]] are cheap, so let's utilize their full potential! Redirects also help in implementing [[wikipedia:Tim Berners-Lee|Sir Berners-Lee's]] concept of [http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html cool URIs], which don't change. --[[User:Jack Phoenix|Jack Phoenix]] ([[User talk:Jack Phoenix|talk]]) 06:11, 5 October 2012 (PDT) | :: 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").<br />[[mw:Help:Redirects|Redirects]] are cheap, so let's utilize their full potential! Redirects also help in implementing [[wikipedia:Tim Berners-Lee|Sir Berners-Lee's]] concept of [http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html cool URIs], which don't change. --[[User:Jack Phoenix|Jack Phoenix]] ([[User talk: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, [[:Category:Templates|templates]] are a good candiate for using CamelCase, and they should stay CamelCase if it helps other less experienced editors. | ::: 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, [[:Category:Templates|templates]] are a good candiate for using CamelCase, and they should stay CamelCase if it helps other less experienced editors. | ||
:::However, for [[Special:Categories|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 [[Special:DoubleRedirects|double redirects]] - which fail to follow on. [[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 07:06, 5 October 2012 (PDT) | ::: However, for [[Special:Categories|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 [[Special:DoubleRedirects|double redirects]] - which fail to follow on. [[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 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]] | |||