Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Article naming guidelines"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (moved Talk:Article Naming Guideline (English) to Talk:Article Naming Guidelines over redirect: undoing move by User:Jobinson99, english articles shouldn't have (English))
(Opinions: HOWTO)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
Should "Article type suffix..." really be recommended?  Working with the Gentoo Wiki I remember almost everybody began naming their articles "HOWTO Dnsmasq" or "Compiz HOWTO".  Because this is an instructional-wiki could we consider this implied?  Also since there are table of content tags available this seems to be repetative.  Possibly this would be better to call it Naming Suggestions for pages that aren't howtos?  For example, "AUR Guidelines" and "Virtual Machine FAQ".  --[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 08:36, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
 
Should "Article type suffix..." really be recommended?  Working with the Gentoo Wiki I remember almost everybody began naming their articles "HOWTO Dnsmasq" or "Compiz HOWTO".  Because this is an instructional-wiki could we consider this implied?  Also since there are table of content tags available this seems to be repetative.  Possibly this would be better to call it Naming Suggestions for pages that aren't howtos?  For example, "AUR Guidelines" and "Virtual Machine FAQ".  --[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 08:36, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Just about every article is a HOWTO. Why is the distinction between tutorial and HOWTO helpful? This is just as redundant as the HOWTO category, which I remember being criticized for the same reasons. The HOWTO suffix is completely unnecessary, annoying to read, and duplicates what categories are supposed to do.
 +
:HOWTO, [[User:Lavandero|Lavandero]] 21:53, 16 November 2010 (EST)
  
 
----
 
----
  
 
I don't like and not recommend suffix, actually only a little articles in ArchWiki follow this principle. is it needed? already have a HOWTO category. many article only have a single name like [[Xorg]] [[Compiz]] etc and it's enough for a title. [[User:GD|GD]] 21:58, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
 
I don't like and not recommend suffix, actually only a little articles in ArchWiki follow this principle. is it needed? already have a HOWTO category. many article only have a single name like [[Xorg]] [[Compiz]] etc and it's enough for a title. [[User:GD|GD]] 21:58, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 02:53, 17 November 2010

Opinions

Article type suffix

Should "Article type suffix..." really be recommended? Working with the Gentoo Wiki I remember almost everybody began naming their articles "HOWTO Dnsmasq" or "Compiz HOWTO". Because this is an instructional-wiki could we consider this implied? Also since there are table of content tags available this seems to be repetative. Possibly this would be better to call it Naming Suggestions for pages that aren't howtos? For example, "AUR Guidelines" and "Virtual Machine FAQ". --Gen2ly 08:36, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Just about every article is a HOWTO. Why is the distinction between tutorial and HOWTO helpful? This is just as redundant as the HOWTO category, which I remember being criticized for the same reasons. The HOWTO suffix is completely unnecessary, annoying to read, and duplicates what categories are supposed to do.
HOWTO, Lavandero 21:53, 16 November 2010 (EST)

I don't like and not recommend suffix, actually only a little articles in ArchWiki follow this principle. is it needed? already have a HOWTO category. many article only have a single name like Xorg Compiz etc and it's enough for a title. GD 21:58, 19 June 2009 (EDT)