Talk:Article Naming Conventions

From SEWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Article Naming Conventions Discussion

Discuss here your proposals for Space Empires Wiki article naming conventions. Naming conventions are used for the search engine to better relate to article queries, especially since the scope of this wiki is all encompassing anything Space Empires related. Normally a new naming convention would be discussed here when any new category is added to the Space Empires Wiki index page.

SEW The SEW convention was used for articles discussing the Space Empires Wiki itself, such as these documentation project pages. Fyron, you were mentioning about maybe using SEWiki. I'd love to hear what you have to say about it. Inigma 00:48, 15 October 2005 (BST)

Further discussion about naming conventions

My apologies for the brash re-indexing of the site. After a quick discussion with Fyron, and an explanation of Categories, we realised that prefixing the different sections with SE* was a really bad idea, since it would almost invalidate the functionality of the Category page.

A rather sub-standard alternative, suffixing pages, was agreed on.

So, now instead of SEIII:FAQ, we have FAQ for SEIII. The problem is that we have at least 5 FAQ pages, because there are 5 different versions of Space Empires. We've tried to encompass 'everything' that is Space Empires instead of setting up individual Wikis for each of the games. This is fine, but how we subdivide and title content needs to be considered carefully.

There will be many key and general terms that do not fit into a specific category, this is also fine. Where an article is related directly to one of the games, then it can be categorised. However, for more general terms, we need to be open to overlap.

For example, what happens if we created a 'Mineral Miner' page? Instead of having 4 mineral miner pages for each consecutive version of Space Empires, we can instead have a generic description that falls under a category called 'Facilities'.

Thats how I see things. Please tell me what you think.--Markavian 1:15, 15 October 2005 (BST)

That's awesome. You forgot to sign your name though (use four tildes). In fact, I was thinking last night that there must be some better way for organizing our info without using prefixes, because it only causes confusion down the line when people want to make links to other articles. I so desperately wanted to get on irc last night to talk to you guys about it, but it looks like we we're on the same vibe. I was thinking that instead of prefixes we just create standard pages and on those pages we either categorize the info by version and/or create an index to version-specific pages of that original topic. I see that that is almost what you guys have done. Categories will also help keep pages related better too. I recommend that we go further and create standard pages like FAQ which then redirects to the category page that lists all FAQs. The individual FAQ pages would of course be FAQ for Version when specially referencing those versions in links. And the on the flipside, say an entry for Mineral Miner would not need to be a redirect, for as you pointed out, we don't need 4 individual Mineral Miner pages, as the amount of info about Mineral Miners in all versions can fit neatly on a that single page. Furthermore, on the same page, the values and any unique descriptions for Mineral Miner in all versions of the game would be listed. If the descriptions for individual topics became increasingly specialized, then we would create Mineral Miner for Version pages - at least for the version that is more specialized than just the main one. Of course, if all or most listed versions on that main Mineral Miner page were complicated and needed their own pages, that is when the page would redirect to a new category called "Mineral Miner" which then references all those Version-unique pages about Mineral Miner.

This way pages grow from a simple reference > then to version pages > then to specialized links and a category if most if not all of the versions are requiring unique pages. This way we make it easy for contributors to just put double brackets around FAQ without having to specify the link any further, unless they want to be more specific about which FAQ. What do you think? Nothing needs to change at this point, but before I add these main pages (like FAQ redirected to a FAQ category, Strategy Guide redirected to the Strategy Guide category, and Mineral Miner listing the values of each version, etc.) I wanted to know what you guys thought. Does this idea seem to make contributing, organization, and expandability easier? Inigma 14:25, 15 October 2005 (BST)

Sounds Good, That all sounds fine to me.

As an aside, you could use the preview button rather than making 20 edits in 10 minutes to an article. Keeps the "recent changes" list less cluttered. ;)

Well, I'm glad we agree on naming conventions for the major sections of the website. Once we've got the initial index structure up (most of which has been done already) we can start putting out a variety of pages for people to start adding comments to. I look forward to getting this firmly off the ground.--Markavian 17:18, 15 October 2005 (BST)

I'm thinking that instead of suffixing "for SEIV", it might look better to just suffix "(SEIV)", as is standard practice on Wikipedia and other wikis. I could possibly run a mass database conversion to shift every existing page over in case we agree, but will require some time to famialarize myself with the database foramt... Fyron 23:25, 23 January 2006 (GMT)

  • I concurr. Good idea, and good luck.inigma 18:41, 6 February 2006 (GMT)