User talk:Jgillbank

If you're looking for a good picture for the Mentor userboxes, here's a thread where we sort of discussed it a bit. The consensus seemed to be for an owl maybe. kraester 12:21, 25 October 2006 (PDT)

Hello agian. I certainly have no problem with your moving the Special Days definition to Special days (definition) [although Special Days (definition) would probably be more appropriate since "Days" is part of the proper noun], but were you planning to update all the jargon definition pages that used that naming syntax, plus the Help: Jargon instructions that explain the page naming scheme to conform to the new plan of yours? A bit of consistency with naming things (for better or worse) is one technique that makes them easier for Wiki-newbies to find. Just wondering. kraester 21:28, 12 November 2006 (PST)

Special days (definition)

On the capitalization, I am seeing "Special Days" as the title of the list of days and "special days" as the concept. So since the definition refers to the concept, I used the lowercase (and Wiki forces the capital S).

No. "Special Days" is both the "concept" and the "list," to use your terms. Every day is a "special day" at DP, but only certain days are "Special Days," especially since certain "Special Days" are weeks and months long. kraester 18:48, 13 November 2006 (PST)

The syntax is based on the more commonly used one at Wikipedia for precision [Nirvana (band), Bach (disambiguation)]. Now, I would have never thought to look for 'Help:Jargon'.

The guide for working with the jargon pages is linked to from every Jargon Guide. But you're right; I should include it in the boiler plate for the definition pages too, so folks who stumble upon it that way are more easily informed.

Vaguery did the first page with the "name name definition" naming syntax, so I just followed his lead since he's one of DP's Wiki admins. I personally have no problems with the "name name (definition)" syntax. Just a couple more characters to type when doing the calls, but I always will go for a few extra characters if it gains some clarity, which I think this may. I just think all the pages that use the "name name (definition)" naming sequence should be consistent. That's really the only reason I kept using the current method: it had been established and I saw no compelling benefit that would override the break with consistency. kraester 18:48, 13 November 2006 (PST)

I only found this definition page while going through some of the Special pages for oddities. I can go around and change all the jargon definitions when I get a chance now that I know about them. The double inclusion, definition page -> jargon -> jargon list, looks odd to me, especially since definitions are not used at WP. But, I can see how they are helpful with the jargon list.

Well, the jargon page scheme was established quite early in the (albeit short) history of DP Wiki to follow the "Once and Only Once" doctrine that Vaguery brought to the table, and I related to instantly since it went so well with the database normalization we taught in our IS classes. And the reason it may see odd to you is that it isn't "definition page -> jargon -> jargon list" which defines how a double-redirect works. Instead, it's this:

 Jargon Guide <-- definition page --> detailed topic page
                          |
                          | 
              links to lots of other pgs 

Yea, my diagram looks more like a double redirect. Your's does better at showing the multiple inclusions. WP does not use definitions and most inclusions are templates for navigating between groups of pages. This is a new use for inclusions that works really well here. It looks odd since it is a new idea, not because it is wrong. --- Jgillbank 20:06, 13 November 2006 (PST)

The term is defined only once, and used for three purposes: 1) the FAQ-like Jargon Guides for newcomers to DP or a DPer taking on a new user role, 2) the introduction of a detailed page on the subject, and 3) a quick link to commonly used terms where a basic definition will suffice for most purposes but a link to more information is often handy/available.

The data goes three places (a lot of the definition pages go to only 2 so far, but they are set up to allow the third destination to be added easily and efficiently), but to each of the three places DIRECTLY, not indirectly, as with a re-direct. (OK, I have to qualify that, some of the links ones go through one re-direct because there are multiple terms or acronyms for the same thing, but just one core definition, like a link to CP redirects to content providing. But only the links, NONE of the inclusions, use re-directs; I make sure of that.)

This is an extremely efficient way of structuring data that meets multiple needs because if something changes (say when we changed P2alt to P3 and created the new P2), we only had to make the basic definition change in one spot and it automatically updated the other pages where it was included. This goes along with the general concept of "database normalization" in the information systems theory and practice that underlies and supplies most large organizations' information needs.

If you have any questions about the setup, the Help:Jargon page lays out most of it, and you can ask me or vaguery any questions you have (actually, I haven't seen him around much lately. I think he's busy teaching in RL.) kraester 18:48, 13 November 2006 (PST)

Wiki Maintenance

Hi, I'm asking for comments (and editing help) at a little project I'm working on. User:Arenlor/Maintenance is the location, since you are a WikiGnome I thought you may enjoy helping this project develop.