DPWiki talk:Standards

Comments in wiki source

I saw something new-to-me and would like to find out how it can best be used.

In the CCEL Project list article, a wiki comment was added. When you look at the page, you don't see anything. If you look at the history/diff view you can see it. It also shows up if you're editing the article. No questions to that point.

The standards/conventions questions I have revolve around the visibility of wiki comments.

First, in the above example, you will only see the comment if you're editing the whole article. You won't see it if you are just editing one of the sub-sections. Should comments be added to (repeated in) every section they apply to?

Second, when editing the whole article my eyes just passed over the comment. Would it be improved with a little ascii art around it, just to call attention to the comment? Or are such archaic conventions sneered at?

<-- *********************************************************** -->
<-- *********************************************************** -->
<-- This is a wiki comment and is only visible while 
   editing the article or looking at historical diffs. -->
<-- *********************************************************** -->
<-- *********************************************************** -->

--Papeters 14:53, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

To be frank, the notion the comment promotes is difficult to justify: that content should be left in place because it's important that it be there, in addition to any duplicate or variant copies that may exist on the main intro pages &c. I think it would be much better (as noted in the Talk page for that article) to have a transcluded "Welcome to this entry point page" text, have one copy centrally located, and include it wherever we think people will land on the wiki (including the front page). We should avoid using comments if at all possible, for exactly the reason you mention.

But we should also avoid having "special" text on pages. Pages should be self-contained as much as possible, but should also avoid duplication of material as a core goal. Much better to transclude a single copy of a generic welcome message everywhere, so that everywhere it is edited the changes can be reflected. There is really no other good way, socially or technically, to mark some content as verboten for editing. Vaguery 14:57, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

Hm. Guess I need to phrase my two questions more clearly. Neither has to do with the content of the wiki comment used as an example. (The links to the example were included only so others, who might be unfaimiar with wiki comments, could take a look and see one.

Both questions are in regards to the general concept of wiki comments.

Should a wiki comment that relates to a whole article or to many sub-sections of an article be place only in the whole article area? Or should it be repeated for each sub-section to which it applies? Placing it in one place means less dulication (less mtce., less clean-up, etc.), but it will not be seen when sub-sections are edited. Placing it in all applicable sub-sections means it will be seen regardless of the "level" at which the editor entered the article, but there is duplication to keep track of.

Are there conventions for increasing the visibility of a wiki comment from within the editing page? Old timers used ascii art to call out comments in programs. Is this convention carried forward in wiki-land or is it considered unnecessary and/or archaic? --Papeters 15:38, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

I frankly don't think they should be used at all. They should exist as explicit notes in the visible text of the wiki article, or they should visible text posted on the Talk page. A "note to editors" is just as effective (or moreso) as a thing plopped right there in plain sight. Vaguery 16:02, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

This is a very true statement in theory, but not necessarily in practice. Just as we know that there are lots of proofers and formatters who proof and format projects without reading anything in the Project Thread (and not always the Project Comments even), I'm sure there are lots of people who NEVER visit an article's Talk page, whether from an ignorance of its existence, or an ignorance of its purpose, or just forgetting to check it, or whatever. Communicating with THOSE folks are why comments embedded in code, such as HTML's <!--comment tags-->, were designed, and I for one have no qualms about using them here in this Wiki as I would in any code I were writing, if I think the situation warrants it. I do agree that they should be used sparingly, because their overuse tends to make them become invisible or otherwise easy to skip over for some people. My 4¢ worth. Kraester 01:21, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Knowing what I do of the conditions under which Ward invented the idea of a wiki, I'd wager that comments are Bad Form of the highest sort. I suspect I agree, too. A wiki is designed so that the relation between page and source code is simple and transparent as possible. Vaguery 16:02, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

Thanks for the information. Am also interested in other opinions, so I'll keep an eye out here as I can.--Papeters 16:11, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

Page name

Might it be a good idea to add an item about possible "norms" for naming pages to this page? For example, Wikipedia's standard of lower-case for everything except very first letter and Proper Names (paraphrased) is what I've been trying to follow when I create pages. Just a thought. Kraester 01:24, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Maybe a suggestion to avoid Proofing as the first word of the article title; otherwise an alphabetical listing of pages will have most of entries under P - one Wikipedia way of clairifying what an article is about, is placing the classification in parentheses after the main subject; an example would be something like

• Image Processing (Scanning)
• Image Processing (Post-Processing)

instead of

• Scanning Images
• Post Processing Images

MarkyMark 18:37, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

External Links

Wikipedia has an optional standard section at the end of the articles for external links; I think we ought to adopt that practise; and use that section for most external links. Sometimes an in-line link makes more sense; but in practice, it is nice on Wikipedia to know that most links in the main body of the article are internal links. And there is usually a See Also section before the External Links section for lists of internal links.

There are a lot of Wikipedia pages that are useful for DP folks; a tiny selection is at my wikipedia home page. Our article here on Proofing blackletter could have a link in an External Links section pointing to the Wikipedia article Blackletter, and maybe a template to ease linking to Wikipedia would be useful; I imagine there is probably something similar to that somewhere on Wikipedia; they seem to have a template for everything. MarkyMark 18:27, 8 June 2006 (PDT)