Talk:Table of contents

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 16:34, 23 August 2012 by Kynikos (talk | contribs) (Rename Category:Web Server to Category:Servers: re)
Jump to: navigation, search

i18n standardization

Non-English categories should follow the naming scheme Title in English (Language). See Help:i18n for details. Template:i18n should be included on all category pages. Furthermore, all category titles should be appropriately capitalized (Like a Title).

Are there any objections? I will prepare an outline of my imagined category tree shortly.

-- pointone 20:20, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

How about using native category names with redirects to i18n named categories on category pages? --AlexanderR (talk)
Actually I was thinking to propose the liberalization of titles for all pages (not only categories), but only after implementing Help_talk:I18n#.22Dummy.22_interlanguage_links_and_deprecation_of_Template:i18n. Please, until then let's stick with the current standard: we'll discuss this thing after that, there's already lots of stuff going on in that talk page :) -- Kynikos (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for pointing to Help_talk:I18n. Good luck with i18n work! --AlexanderR (talk)


[split from a previous discussion, now closed. -- Kynikos 16:48, 23 April 2012 (EDT)]

As I began sorting and standardizing the Spanish categories, I realized that many English categories have improper capitalization. These issues could probably more efficiently be dealt with simultaneously. --Emiralle 21:46, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

I can easily solve this one with my bot, although it's not urgent. -- Kynikos 16:48, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
Maybe not so easily, since I'd need a dictionary of words that should be left lower-case. -- Kynikos (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"also in" links

Do you like seeing the "also in" links next to categories that have more than one parent? -- Kynikos 06:56, 1 March 2012 (EST)

Related discussion: Help talk:Style#Category pages - tree or otherwise? If we return to a tree structure, "also in" links would not exist. -- pointone 19:18, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
But maybe in that case displaying them would be even more important, as a means of detecting violations to the rule. -- Kynikos 08:27, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
Quite right. My vote is conditional upon the tree decision, then. If a tree structure is enforced, display it to detect violations. If we allow multiple categories, however, hide it to avoid clutter. -- pointone 13:04, 15 March 2012 (EDT)
Ah kk your position is perfectly clear. However I wouldn't consider the ToC only as a tool for end-users, I think it's also very useful for maintainers, in fact being able to spot multi-parent categories (be them allowed or not) gives a clearer idea of how the articles are structured.
Some ideas to reduce/avoid clutter:
(I'll probably implement this solution for the next update)
(for this option, place the mouse on the asterisk; we can use another symbol, like + ^ #  !)
-- Kynikos 07:06, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
The first idea is implemented currently with <small>. -- Kynikos 11:56, 18 March 2012 (EDT)


Display it
[vote with : ~~~~]
thestinger 00:48, 2 March 2012 (EST)
Skydiver 00:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)
Kynikos 05:09, 2 March 2012 (EST)
Don't display it
[vote with : ~~~~]
Fengchao 20:09, 1 March 2012 (EST)
pointone 19:18, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

"also in" translations

Currently only Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese have a translated "also in" string for categories with more than one parent, all the others are using the English wording. Please request new translations here. -- Kynikos 05:59, 12 March 2012 (EDT)

Add Table of Contents link into left navigation panel

Sometime I want to visit this Table of Contents page. Right now I have to click to Main Page and then Click the link on the top. Why not add a link into navigation part on left page. It will be more visiable their. -- Fengchao (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually this seems a pretty cool idea to me! It's as easy as editing MediaWiki:Sidebar: what about putting the link in second place, right below the link to Main Page? -- Kynikos (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
That is my prefered location too. -- Fengchao (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good! A possible alternative would be to include the ToC on the Main Page itself. -- pointone (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
For the moment I've added the link to the navigation pane (also for curiosity ^^ ), although I don't understand why our MediaWiki:Sidebar had been deleted (automatically with an update?) with a "No longer required" summary.
The idea of reorganizing the Main Page however is kind of interesting, it would be worth discussing it separately :) Maybe instead of adding the whole ToC we could add only some major categories, or create a section with featured articles...
-- Kynikos (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Where to translate "Table of Contents" to other language ? I can not find it. -- Fengchao (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what can be done, thanks for the report. -- Kynikos (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
We'd probably need to create and translate a system message: Special:AllMessages says "This is a list of system messages available in the MediaWiki namespace. Please visit MediaWiki Localisation and if you wish to contribute to the generic MediaWiki localisation.". I don't have a clear idea of what we should do now, there's still the alternative of adding the ToC to the main page. -- Kynikos (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently there's a problem with the cache and the link to Table of Contents is visible only on a minority of pages: it should be visible when logged in, or by appending ?action=purge to the url when not logged in (see mw:Manual:Purge). I hope the cache will refresh automatically in the next days. -- Kynikos (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the cache doesn't refresh this feature, instead it refreshes it only as the pages are edited and saved (or just purged as shown above). -- Kynikos (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Web Server to Category:Servers

Moved from Talk:Fengchao: I noticed you moved the sendmail article to the "web server" category. But is that correct? It does not use or require apache, or lighthttp or any other web server. And this is not an article about squirrelmail or any other webmail package. (It can work with squirrelmail and others, and I do plan to add a link to the current squirrelmail article, and including config tips for sendmail on the squirrelmail article, but squirrelmail is not the point of the sendmail article) I did look for a category called "mail server" or something, but since there isn't any, I came to the conclusion that Networking was the closest correct thing.

Hmm, may I suggest a "mail servers" category? It could hold not only this article, but also the one about Postfix, Exim, Courier MTA, etc. We currently have a "email clients" category. Chrisl (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

+1 on creating a new category. Thanks Chris for your work :) --Maevius (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 :D hehe thanks! Chrisl (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
+1 for a new category. Currently there are too many pages in Category:Networking. Right now I am moving "Server" related article into Category:Web Server. Clean up Category:Web Server is next step in my Todo list. -- Fengchao (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
At the same time, the introduction in Category:Web Server says:
This category contains articles on various types of servers: web page servers, mail servers, code repository servers.
Should we change the category name to Category:Servers to make it less confusion? And then we can add sub category for different servers.
-- Fengchao (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
IMHO Category:Servers is too generic, servers can be many different kinds of software, not necessarily related to networking, think e.g. of Xorg.
Since Category:Internet Applications has already Category:Email Client, Category:Web Browser and Category:Web Server, I guess creating Category:Mail Server would be the most logic way to go. If however Category:Mail Server would end up having too few articles, they should probably better categorized directly under Category:Internet Applications, since it's indeed true that a "mail" server is not a "web" (http/ftp) server.
-- Kynikos (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)