GDWiki talk:Naming conventions
From GDWiki
What is the rationalization for the capitalization requirements given in this page, and does this justify the effort of the large project it would be to apply this policy to the existing wiki? Don't forget the aesthetic concern: IMO, lengths of uncapitalized, important text in titles is sometimes ugly and confusing. --Snoolas 09:02, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
- My point of view is that a standardized naming convention would help prevent clutter in the form of "Pages Like This" versus "Pages like This" and all other various forms of permutations that could end up causing a lot of annoying redirects and whatnot. Of course, the difficulty lies in getting the policy, if agreed upon, to have enough momentum and recognition to actually serve that purpose. Otherwise there is great risk of creating more mess by way of people 'fixing' the broken page titles and adding redirects, et cetera.
I don't see it as worthwhile to go along and change every existing 'broken' page by hand, either. Especially since that's probably something that could be automated on the backend, and since there isn't any actual agreement on any sort of policy yet. jpetrie talk 15:32, 17 June 2008 (CDT)
[edit] "See also"
I think we should agree on a standard header name for internal and external link collections. I believe adopting Wikipedia's See also and External links naming conventions, where See also contains relevant inter-wiki links and External links contains relevant links outside of the wiki, would be most logical. I find it a bit annoying to see different names used between pages for this. --Spodi 13:54, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
[edit] Tutorial Naming
My proposal for tutorial names:
Tutorials should be a standard header following the capitalization rules above. Tutorial names should not contain namespaces. And example of a good tutorial name is Introduction to OpenGL. A bad tutorial names is OpenGL:Tutorial:Introduction. Eeyore 11:07, 9 July 2008 (CDT)
