Naming conventions (languages)/Archive 2 |
is reverting my edits that rename program language articles to titles in accord with the naming convention, by saying he does not like the convention.
This is moved from my talkpage. -- 03:14, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
= ALGOL programming language=
ALGOL programming language WAS the original title. Watch out, or you ll again end up doing that thing you hate: messing up with article s titles.
:That was wrongly named. The article should be named just 12:04, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
::IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHAT TO NAME THE ARTICLE, and this is AGAINST ALL what you just said before: that you had no preference in naming. Look, it is ok if you revert, but PLEASE STOP removing the classifiers from those articles that, fortunately (thanks to a judicious writer), already have the right title to begin with.
:Sorry, I didn t make myself clear. I don t have preference so I want to stick to the naming convention we have had. -- 12:10, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
::The naming convention that there is, does not say that you can change an article s title to remove the classifier if it has it. PLEASE STOP CHANGING the name of the ALGOL programming language article to ALGOL or I ll have to take this matter up to an administrator. Revert all the ones I changed, but PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO leave alone the ones I didn t.
The convention [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28languages%29] says
Convention : Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with programming language in the case of programming languages, or language in the case of natural languages. If the language s name is unique, there is no need for any suffix. For example, Python programming language and English language, but VBScript and Sanskrit.
So I think I am allowed to make a move if I read this correctly. Since the language name ALGOL is unique, there is no need to add the suffix. -- 12:19, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
No, you re not. BUT please, can you stop for a minute and consider THERE S a debate going on RIGHT NOW about precisely that point so, EVEN IF YOU WERE (which you aren t) allowed to make the change, the REASONABLE, COURTEOUS, JUDICIOUS thing to do is to LEAVE THE NAME AS IT IS, and await for resolution. — 12:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Why am I not to allowed to make a change in the name Do you think ALGOL is not unique And since we have a concrete convention cited above, I don t think I have any reason to ignore the convention. -- 12:28, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
::Did you even read what I said on my previous paragraph regarding the judicious thing to do Don t you realize that this is taking us both to a useless confrontation and that we could both be better spending this time contributing to Wikipedia --- In any case, to answer your question: the Convention is a guide for the article s author, and not a permission for other people to mess with it FOR NO REASON. I, foolishly, tried to homogenize the names in a way THAT NOBODY LOST ANYTHING (thanks to the shortcuts) but now I know better. Now, PLEASE leave this article s title alone (and those that I didn t change, too) and lets call this issue over, ok — 12:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
While I think it is better not to talk what is the best way to spend time since we are interested in contributing, I think I would have no problem in following the convention just like every one else and I don t think I am messing with titles but I am just fixing. My point is that no one should have any problem in following the convention, including me and you. As I said I know you are against the current convention and I have nothing against you trying to make the change in the convention. But that attempt ought not to invalidate the convention we have right now. -- 12:47, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC) ::Look. This is not a matter of me being against the convention, as NONE of my title changes remain, and I AM NOT MAKING ANY MORE OF THEM. But, you should understand that the Convention does not give you the right to go and remove ALL programming language classifiers PARTICULARLY since there is an ONGOING debate about what s the best way to proceed. I DEFINITELY don t want to continue this conversation anymore, but KEEP in mind that if you change the article s names, I ll revert them back and immediately consult and administrator to settle this issue and LEAVE THINGS AS THEY WERE UNTIL a consensus resolution is obtained. Please act with wisdom. Have a good day. — 12:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What can I say. I have followed the convention and that is a problem True, you are against the convention but why does it prohibit me to follow the convention we have had Generally speaking, if there is some person who doesn t like some convention, then every one else cannot follow the convention Just like everyone else, I follow the convention in contributing wikipedia. That is all. -- 02:32, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
You know, the 11:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Agreed, but the convention is always to use the most common name. We don t namespace articles unless there is a naming conflict. We don t go round adding person to every article on a person, or car to every article about a car. Thus, if there is no conflict over ALGOL, it should be at 21:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
==Continued Discussion (heading for breaking up this long discussion)==
::The article should be named ALGOL following both Wikipedia conventions and common usage. Google gets 778 hits for [http://www.google.com/searchq=%22ALGOL+programming+language%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Google Search: ALGOL programming language ]. Changing the search to [http://www.google.com/searchq=ALGOL+programming+language+&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=130&sa=N Google Search: ALGOL programming language] without quotation marks (which means the words do not have to be together in a single phrase) gets 43,900 hits. Check some of the references found. ::Note . ::The alternative expression ALGOL programming language is not much used. I say expression because ALGOL Programming Language was never an even an unofficial name for ALGOL. ALGOL Programming Language is limited to part of all of a tile in a few articles and ALGOL programing language is only an expression in which the name ALGOL is used as an adjective, similar to expression like roach motel or circus ring or UNICEF annual campaign . ::Even if both Wikipedia conventions and general usage did not support the ALGOL as the name of common use, Danakil is also wrong in claiming that conventions are only for an article s so-called author. An early paragraph of [Wikipedia:Manual of Style] reads: ::Clear, informative and unbiased , and pages will be gradually made to conform with this guide. ::This makes is quite clear that copyediting is expected to be often done by someone other than the writer of an article and such copyediting by others is encouraged to bring an article into conformance with the Style Guide . ::Danakil, in any case, is only one of many authors of this article, even if one who has made a number of recent contributions. Yet were he the main author , at the bottom of the Wikipedia editing page a note in boldface says: ::If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. ::No one personally owns an article in Wikipedia. At any time a later editor may change any parts of an article, including the name, sometimes for standardization reasons. Debate may then occur. But even an original sole author of a single article has no special status in determining what changes should or should not be made to an article, including changes to its name. Nor can an administrator settle such an issue as this. ::Also typing in capitals, shouting as it were, is considered impolite and bad etiquette here as elsewhere on the web. A courteous and judicious thing for Danakil to do would be to recognize that there is no virtue in wasting Dankil s time and others time in supporting retention of a needlessly long heading for this article against both Wikipedia convention and general usage. :: 01:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
=Programming languages=
I think it would be good to have stricter standard on these naming conventions... X programming language as a caption is already a whole lot more informative than just X . It also looks funny when some languages are just X and others Y programming language . Since some Xs can be confused with a whole different X, Y programming language would be a nice and usable format. Moving a page doesn t take much and it creates an automatic redirect. We could also even setup a new wikiproject to standardize programming language articles and create new articles.
- 21:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:The title is to identify something uniquely, not document it fully. To borrow an example I used a little while ago, we don t title the article Albert Einstein Homo sapiens sapiens just to make his species and subspecies clear, or William Jefferson Clinton United States of America President 1993 - 2001 just to be sure no one is confused about which one we have in mind. The articles should be shortest unambiguous, because that lets the most links work without piping or redirs, and minimizes the typing. The only purpose of having X programming language as a redir is that some writers don t really grok the WP conventions and feel compelled to write out programming language every time, even when it s totally obvious from context.
:Now there are areas in which we pre-disambiguate, as in some cities and towns, and in fact that policy is perennially objected to, even though thousands of town names are ambiguous. Similarly, we pre-disambiguate for naval ship names (though not civilian) because almost every navy ship is named after something else in the encyclopedia. However, we never pre-disambiguate all articles in an area just because a small number are ambiguous; that s the kind of consistency argument that only a computer nerd would make (oh wait, this is a computer nerd topic 
). 22:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:: -- title is to identify something uniquely, not document it fully. Haha. :D What a full documentation that would be. Why do we need to write an article if we can just title it C programming language And this do is a computer nerd topic. - 00:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I fully agree with ZeroOne above. Some specific issues:
— 22:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Why rename something because it s potentially ambiguous That s just a waste of time - in fact it can be confusing because it suggests that there is something else to be ambiguous with, even if no such thing exists. Anyway, we already have a rule, which is that most common usage gets to own the unqualified name - 22:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::I have never intended to suggest that you should rename something just because it is potentially ambiguous . The comments above seek to point out that the current lack of standardization has several deleterious effects: perceived informality|unprofessionalism among others, but most importantly: the inability to have automated&dynamic classification, categorization, lists of prog langs, cross referencing, etc. Furthermore, I am only suggesting standardization on the prog lang names topic... definitely not about city names...but, since you brought it up, I don t see any harm in having a city s main article be Cityname, Countryname and have a Cityname article redirected to it... what would the problem be Having to see , Countryname in the article s title Isn t that the way it would be listed in most encyclopaedias and it would have the advantage that if, in the future, another article is created for a city named just the same... well then it would not be necessary to go and fix all links from the articles that previously pointed out the first one. But again, I m only interested in how this applies to prog lang names and classification. — 23:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::Heh, try going to 23:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::::Let s keep London out of this conversation, shall we We are discussing programming languages. Stan, I was wondering if you are even trying or willing to understand danakil s points. What if X programming language was the reigning standard and someone wanted to change it to X I bet you would defend that state as vigorously as you are defending the current standard. In a democracy like Wikipedia people must be able to question the existing norms and discuss them in a constructive atmosphere. And please provide me a link to those MediaWiki internals you are referring to! - 00:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::::OK, first of all, touching someone else s text on talk pages, even with strikethroughs, is considered an evil deed, and can get you banned permanently if you re not careful. (You can redeem yourself by restoring our contributions to their original form.) Second, when discussing policy, it s totally legitimate to consider analogies; after all, this is a general encyclopedia, not of programming languages only, and as a result we prefer a style that is consistent across all 320,000+ articles - the couple hundred PL articles are just a tiny corner of the whole enterprise. Third, of course I m going to defend the status quo if I think it s good; if you take the time to look at my thousands of edits, you ll see that I ve argued for many policy changes, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Suggesting that I would take a position thoughtlessly is dangerously close to ad hominem - another way to get banned. Fourth, this discussion right here is exactly the resolution process we go through; be glad that I m patient, unlike many other editors who would revert danakil s changes with no further comment. Right now I m waiting to hear specifics of how danakil thinks nonstandard article titling is going to organize things; for my part I ve had a hand in organizing projects that now include thousands of articles and are still growing, and sometimes titling in a certain way is useful, and other times not. There are ongoing discussions all over WP about this sort of thing; some people write more on talk pages than on articles even. Fifth, all the MediaWiki info is acessible via the Community portal link on every page - 03:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::::::Fine, sorry, removed strike through. I just thought you clung to it too much. City, Country is in my humble opinion not analogous to X programming language because the latter part is variable in the first one and static in the second one. Danakil already gave you several points, the most important of which I think is that the current naming convention is not standard but varies between foobar and fubar programming language . Since the first convention causes disambigs and then leads to the second one, the second one should be made the de facto standard. - 11:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::::::: variable vs static I don t even understand what you re trying to get at with that. Your second point, that we should use X programming language because some articles were erroneously named that way, is completely backwards; this is not MS Windows, where we have to pretend that mistakes are brilliant design decisions and make the whole world live with it. Instead, with the effort of a modest amount of article moving (2-3 hours of work maybe, because I habitually stop to copyedit), we can be consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia, instead of looking like weirdos because all the PL articles are done in a different way. 17:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::::::::Variable: A string that can be either England , Germany , Finland , Sweden , Japan or any other country. Static: A string that is always programming language . My point was not that all PL articles should be suffixed with programming language because some were erroneusly written that way, my point was that there should be the suffix because some were forced to be written that way due to disambiguation issues. - 19:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Variability depends on the scope of your view; , Minnesota is constant for all cities in Minnesota, while in the range of computing topics, some articles have programming language as a suffix, and some don t. Thinking about all this, it was probably a mistake for this policy to suggest adding the language / programming language qualifier for ambiguous cases, without the parens that have become standard elsewhere. There are a lot of things like this, leftovers from the early days of WP, or creations by newbies still unfamiliar with the encyclopedia; only recently was 20:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Parentheses would make it more obvious that it s not a standard but a way to separate disambiguation pages. Some admin with a bot could probably easily change all X programming language to X (programming language) . I see you are suggesting splitting natural and programming language naming conventions. Have you already got an idea of the new conventions then - 23:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::Not much more than I ve said already, it s just having both of these on one policy page gives the impression that they have to be the same or similar. 03:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It does not look very professional to have: Arc language and LotusScript programming language and Perl all side by side... ambiguities Isn t Perl potentially ambiguous Isn t LotusScript clearly unambiguous Isn t there a possibility to have an fictional Arc language in the near future and then having to confussingly disambiguate How can an adequate policy be established on what constitutes or not a potentially ambiguous name
:To address this specific point: the LotusScript article was mistitled, and I have fixed it. Unsurprisingly, not one reference to it used the full phrase in the text. Thanks for the heads up. I would argue that BASIC is also unambiguous because of its capitalization, but that s a little more sketchy. :As for Perl, no it is not ambiguous. What else could it refer to except maybe someone s last name That person s article would have their full name as a title. ). It would take some doing for some other Perl to become so much as a shadow to this one. I see it s been moved, but I won t move it back to avoid flames. :As for Arc language, I prefer the programming language suffix, but if this is what Arc people use, then that s fine. If it might become potentially ambiguous in the future, to the point where this is no longer overwhelmingly the dominant meaning, then we ll update it then. Wikipedia changes quickly, and there s nothing confusing about making updates when updates are needed (see the history of Hurricane Charley). : 04:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My opinion:
# The language or programming language suffix should only be used where the name alone does not refer overwhelmingly to the programming language. # If the suffix is used, the name alone should be a disambiguation page, even if it only contains one item. More are likely to be added. # For those not using the suffix, the suffixed version should be a redirect. This makes things work for editors who get used to putting suffixes on everything. # No parenthesized suffixes. The , a sentence you might find in an article not primarily about programming.)
03:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:I haven t looked at the official disambig policy in a while actually - I think that the use more specific name rule is falling by the wayside, at least in part because there is software support for the paren form. For instance, one of the examples listed, 03:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::This isn t really the place for a debate about disambiguation suffixes, but I think phrase-linking is very important. When you have the opportunity to link a phrase, it not only involves a lot less typing and easier maintenance for the editor (compare Java (programming language) to Java programming language), but it also serves as disambiguation for the reader , which we don t always do enough of (shortened names should really only be used in a clear context). Parenthesized tags should be preferred when there is no common, specific phrase for the topic. ::Also, don t forget the principle of accidental linking. If someone puts brackets around a phrase which is reasonably common in practice, they should expect to get a link to that thing. Article names should be accidentally-linkable wherever possible; using a redirect for this purpose obscures the relevence of the link ( is that the page I really meant ) ::Besides that, there s no standard set of parenthesized tags, which seriously deteriorates its algorithmic nature, and gives it the same problems with subjectivity which you describe. I ve seen (computer science), (computing), (programming), and many more general and specific parenthesized tags. Other subjects have similar issues. 04:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::I brought it up on 05:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
= Fizzled discussion =
Does nobody have anything further to say The chief rationales I see for changing the rule to always have programming language are uniformity, which to me doesn t seem any more crucial here than in the rest of WP, and possibility of automated processing of some undefined sort, which I claim is better supported via category system anyhow. Since we assume forms of reference will be available via redirect, this is more of an issue of article titling rather than making links work. Without compelling rationales and/or hordes of angry editors insisting on a change , the convention will remain as-is. 06:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Let us consider a very specific example, the article at 07:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:In conclusion: we would end up typing less with the programming language classifier convention than with the current one. Furthermore, there would be no perceivable effect for those who prefer to stick referring to their favourite prog lang articles as LanguageName ... In other words: all advantages and no disadvantages (except for the work to be done chaning the names and fixing the refs, which I m willing to do, if no one else). — 07:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::Hmm... but does using a part of the article s name as a classifier actually do a good job of assisting in those things that you say you want to do, such as auto-generating cross-references, etc. For instance, we might have an article tomato (food), but this isn t going to help us autogenerate a list of fruits or vegtables, (a tomato belongs to both groups, in different contexts). Here s a better solution: add a new tab... (er, you know, like the history and move tabs at the top of the page) called catagories. When the author, (or anyone), clicks there, they get a page full of checkboxes, oh, I don t know, like 50 to 100 of the most common ways in which something can be catagorized. The user could then check the boxes she feels are appropriate. Like anything else on Wikipedia, vandalism would be quickly corrected, and it would allow for a standard set of catagories to choose from. In cases where the author felt no current catagory applied, she could check an other box, and enter her proposal for a new catagory. Um... so what do people think 08:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::Notice how you are only addressing one point out of the eight that I brought up as pros. So, even if your counterpoint were strong, somebody (if not you) would still have to throw down all the others just to leave the issue as a tie between the current convention and the proposed homogenization. Anyway, the answer to your point is yes, it definitely is useful (your tomato example notwithstanding). Give you two simple examples that I could use right now, at this very moment: (please refer to 08:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::: Notice how you are only addressing one point out of the eight
::::I apologize. Despite that fact that it is now 4:40 in the morning, I am going to individually address each of your points. ::::* And I ll reply once more only in consideration of the trouble you took to reply, but then I ll be out of this discussion for good, as it has now been accepted by Stan,AdmN that this is an emotional issue after all... and only fools argue over those. —
:::: ...perform automated takes on ALL programming language articles.... I simply don t see how using a controversial classifier name will assist in automation any better than an actual and formal system of assigning catagory(s) attributes to articles. ::::*Look, you will be hard pressed to find somebody more in pro of extensive categorization than me (please refer to my work on
:::: ...he/she can type LanguageName programming language...returned with that query. This presupposes that users of Wikipedia would be intimately knowledgeable with whatever standards WP sets up. I can assure you, someone coming to WP for the first time would type X not X programming language. So the issue is having a convenience for those who are already familiar with Wiki-ways... but of course, such people would already be aware of redirects, disambiguation pages, the lists of programming languages, the categories of programming languages, etc. ::::*PRECISELY what I said: with the classifier scheme users (both newbies and oldies) can either type X or X programming language. Again: the programming language classifier scheme cum redirects is not less convenient than the current mess in any case for anybody. You get the best of both schemes.—
:::: uniformity... hard to explain ... that it makes sense to have Perl alongside Lisp programming language. Harder than to explain why languages that have the word script in their name are classified as programming rather than scripting Note: I m not suggesting the form X scripting... either, I m saying it s better to try to avoid the issue altogether from an article s title. ::::*No. It is not harder. JavaScript has the word right in there and nobody would argue for calling it a scripting language instead of a programming language ( scripting language is used in conjunction with prog lang in this case).—
:::: ...avoid the need to go and fix a whole bunch of references.... True. ::::*Glad you reognize this. Well, if the rest of the classifier scheme is at least not less convenient than the current mess, one advantage like this should be enough to adopt it. —
:::: as wikipedia grows, ...begin to develop standards and conventions.... It seems to me that the standards and conventions should be primarily interested in assisting those who are trying to look things up, and not be biased in favor of those trying to write the articles, ie: if occasionally having to go and fix a whole bunch of references makes WP more intuative/pleasent/easier for the researchers who use it, then that s what we should do. ::::*Again: Please study the issue before commenting on it: there is no way at all that a prog lang classifier scheme cum redirects is less convenient for querying . On the contrary, it is more convenient for it is a superset of the current mess.—
:::: we would end up typing less... Who would end up typing less The article authors, or the article readers (I know that they can be the same people, I m just separating the tasks). ::::*Both.—
:::: the work to be done chaning the names and fixing the refs, which I m willing to do In fact, you appear to be doing just that without a consensus that it is the appropriate thing to do. ::::*NO. I made that mistake once, it is now corrected and I have now refrained from changing the names. On the contrary, I have an ongoing disagreement with
:::::Danakil, I want to apologize for the above assertion. I saw you moving a number of pages last night, in a way that seemed to me to violate this article s current recommendations, but I can see that the issue is far more complex than that, sorry. 21:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::::*Not a problem, AdmN. I m glad we ve had a chance to discuss some topics that interest both of us, and I will take the opportunity to ask for your opinion on how to improve 21:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::: I can not help but to be convinced that this is an emotional, rather than a rational issue. Of course it is, that was my whole point from the beginning. That was what I meant by opening a can of worms. Consider: it would be inappropriate to create an article called Albert Einstein (Jew) , despite the fact that 1) it is a factual classifier, and 2) it would allow us to auto-generate lists of Jewish people, etc. Regardless of the rational usefulness, people could get pretty emotional about it. ::::*Bad analogy: first, Albert Einstein is very likely to remain unique whereas Gambas is certainly not; second, the defining thing about Einstein is not tha he was Jew , whereas the defining thing for PL/I is that it was a programming language . Now you are yourself confusing the naming issue with the adequate domain of categorizations.—
::::Wow... now it s 5:20 in the morning... this Wiki thing isn t going to be very good for my sleep patterns.... 
09:24, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How s this for a pro- programming language -suffix argument: When browsing some Wikipedia-list like Recent changes or Category:Stub the suffix programming language in the article name would quickly draw the attention of those who are interested in programming languages and repel those who aren t so that they wouldn t waste their time clicking links they won t find interesting. Besides, how does something like 12:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) *Most certainly.—
OK, let s see if I can address some accumulated points:
If you brought this up after six months of activity and said I have this script that will run all the examples from programming language articles to check them for correctness , that would be more compelling (although probably we would just create a special flat list or category consisting of the languages the script is able to test).I ve got more, but it s time for breakfast, back later. 14:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, finishing up:
So I ll boil the issue down to a single question: do the claimed advantages of going against Wikipedia-wide standards justify the divergence from the rest of the encyclopedia That should be a pretty high bar, and the arguments I ve seen so far just don t seem to reach up to it. 15:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This issue now having gotten my attention, I m certainly willing and able to finish the job of moving everything to the correct titles per the existing naming convention (what the convention says is what matters, not how the articles happen to be titled at this moment), plus fix all the links. I m a language expert after all, I should be spending more time on those than on beetles and batfish and battleships anyway. It s not necessarily a bad idea to go along with the existing policy, and reraise the issue six months later; a couple times I ve been lucky enough to have had my opponents disappear in the interim. You could always ask for a vote, but it s risky; anything less than a 2/3-3/4 majority is generally considered insufficient to warrant a change, and makes it harder to pitch a policy change later. 21:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, the sudden pressing need to go change a bunch of articles is a common phenomenon around here - my immediate reaction when I saw the couple of moves on my watchlist was oh sh*t, I completely forgot about finishing up those redirs . That kind of thing is attributable more to guilty conscience than nefarious intent, and to a sort of encyclopedist s ADD, where we spend an hour cleaning up some anon s badly-written new article, and then another hour making all link better, then an hour arguing policy somehwere and so on, eventually losing track of the original activity. 22:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
*I disagree that such explanation fits 22:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::Thanks. I m going to let the issue sit for a day or two, give 22:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::I ll just address my last point and then.. well, I guess it s an If you can t beat them, join them -situation. I wrote: When browsing some Wikipedia-list like Recent changes or Category:Stub the suffix programming language in the article name would quickly draw the attention of those who are interested in programming languages and repel those who aren t . I am constantly puzzled by the article names I see in those lists. For example, in the current list of recent changes there are names like 22:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::::It occurs to me that it would be relatively easy to find and display the articles categories in those kinds of lists. I never know if Joe Blow is a Senegalese boxer or what. Articles showing up without cats are obvious, invites the energetic to categorize. 23:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::::Yes, I thought about that myself too. It would be great. And perhaps, if that wouldn t create too much load for the servers, the categories could also be shown in the title-attribute of all the links. You probably know where these kind of technical ideas can be put forward so please do that. :) -- 23:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So, for what it s worth, having immersed myself into the issues involved, I m now thinking that X programming language doesn t present any real problems for me. Signing off... AdmN (homo sapiens sapiens who frequently changes his mind). 02:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)|
|