Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

Archive #1

People do realize that when the names of the articles are in all caps, this makes it rather difficult for the wiki software and thus the editors to link to the proper article. As Conservative has pointed out, excessive redirects also hurt page ranking. When you want to talk about blocked trains by typing [[blocked trains]] you are instead forced to do [[Blocked Trains|blocked trains]] to get blocked trains. This adds an unnecessary burden on the person writing the article to add a pipe link, and a redirect from the lower case version so that if someone does link it, it doesn't show up as a wanted page and a red link. This is not so much a matter of "be different than wikipedia" but rather "this is how the software works and the way to make the most use of it." This becomes even more important if non-sysops are not allowed to make redirect page links.

I would strongly suggest that administrative types reconsider the name of the article. If it is a proper noun, certainly have it in the proper case - but if it is not, let the wiki software handle it correctly.

If the decision is to remain have it upper case, I would likewise strongly recommend that this be put down, enforced, and you go though all the pages that do not conform to this and rectify them. Do realize that you will be working against the software in trying to do this. --Rutm 11:28, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

• No, it isn't "working against" the software at all. That is not an accurate statement. Now some editors, on rare occasions might have to do as in your examples. How often does that happen? Not much. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:33, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

New articles, out of the past 500 that are not title caps:

• New! Capitol punishment‎; 18:51 . . (+582) . . Boyscout (Talk | contribs)
• New! Communazi pact‎; 16:04 . . (+37) . . RobS (Talk | contribs) (create)
• New! Average velocity‎; 08:10 . . (+209) . . SharonS (Talk | contribs)
• New! Instantaneous velocity‎; 08:09 . . (+203) . . SharonS (Talk | contribs)
• New! Zone blocking shceme‎; 23:56 . . (+295) . . TimmyJdb (Talk | contribs)

Poking about, you've also got citizenship cases, prior restraint, parochial school. Look through Category:US Senate Terms or Category:Biology and you'll see many, many, many examples of non-title case articles. You might need to do a sysop education class if you want to change all of these and have that change stay going forward. --Rutm 20:46, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Linked from the main page, you've got mainstream media, liberal bias, public school, 2008 presidential race, illegal alien. This happens quite a bit and is the natural way to write articles, which is the way the software best supports. --Rutm 20:52, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

• Well, as you already knew before posting, this is something that we are doing just as you suggested, systematically changing. Originally most articles were created in title case, then it mostly stopped for a while, mimicking Wikipedia. So, does this mean you would like to coordinate this project, like Azriphale is doing with the categories? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:56, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I believe you are waisting significant amounts of time and energy trying to do this which ultimately will end up as a bad thing. You are making it harder for contributors to add material, to link to existing material, and for search engines to find the material in question. Aside from 'being different than Wikipedia', what is the reason to do this? How much work and education will it take of sysops and users rather than working with the software as it is designed? --Rutm 21:00, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

• So, you are merely a troll, spoiling for a disruption? Why do you insist on saying what several Wikimedia programmers have told me is false? Title case in no way disrupts the software or makes it "work harder". It in no way impacts search engine bots, as they are adaptive, and learn. It might effect placement for a day or two, but afterwards it compensates. And that information came to me from a pretty unimpeachable source at Google. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't know about search engine rankings and how "hard" the software works, but it does make it harder for editors, and it's not accurate to say that this is "not much". It's also fair to say that it's not the way that the software was designed to work. Philip J. Rayment 10:13, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Philip on this. It is much easier to put links into pages if only the first word is capitalized. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 10:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Search engines don't like being redirected. If nearly every link to multi word link is a redirect, they will slightly lower the score of those pages. Nor do they like what appears to be duplicate content at multiple pages.

Secondly, when writing articles, it is natural to put the [[ ]] around relevant word groups. This can be seen in instantaneous velocity where the contributor was writing and then put in [[average velocity]]. To make this upper case, it would either require the contributor to write [[Average Velocity|average velocity]] or create a redirect page at the lower case version to the title cap version - something that it appears that non-sysops are forbiden to do.

This also increases the likelihood of having two articles that differ only in case that need to be merged later. If one user created a link to [[Average Velocity]] page and another created a link to [[average velocity]] without realizing what the other had done, and then two people come and each fill in content at each page, you end up having to merge the documents later.

This makes more work for those with the move power to constantly patrol the recent changes and move files to the one that the manual of style states.

It is not a matter of making the software work harder, but rather needlessly making the individuals work harder at getting an article into the wiki properly. It also makes it so you cannot leverage the wiki knowledge of other users entering who are familiar with other wikis (I challenge you to find another wiki out there that has all upper case article titles).

--Rutm 12:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

• Is there something about the statement above, that the decision had been made, that is escaping my learned colleagues and editors? Has anyone done an actual count as to how many articles exist with Title Case as compared to what you suggest? And how many existing articles without Title Case are merely re-directs from ones that began with it? Now, please move on. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:57, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I hate to disagree publicly about this, but I think this is going to more trouble than it's worth. We can differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia by making quality articles that are objective and reliable; capitalizing words unnecessarily isn't going to help our reputation any.

For proper nouns, like Abraham Lincoln, we're already doing it. For book titles, we capitalize all but the small connecting words: The Church of Liberalism.

But terms like intelligent design (the theory itself) are ofter shadowed by a movie or book title having the same words: Intelligent Design (the book by William Dembski. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:22, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

• Ed and I have talked, and he believes he has a software solution (being the greatest Mediator on the Planet) that will please everyone. Stay tuned. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 16:41, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I know this a bit back in time, but has any progress been made on a software solution? Or has any more formal policy as to the proper capitalization and how to create wikilinks been specified? Having it be inconsistent just leaves more work for the day it does become consistent. --Rutm 15:32, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

• If you check the other page here, Manual of Style, you can clearly see it dictates Title Case, and to not wiki-link dates. Unless and until some other solution is found, that is the decision. I posted on your talk page, asking you to contact me, to inform you about this matter, so I am happy you decided to post here, at least. If some software solution is found, the Manual of Style will be changed. As for wiki-dating, that was a decision of the Owner. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:38, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

---

This policy has been reversed, following discussion here, and in line with the majority preference on both this page and the linked page. Philip J. Rayment 01:04, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Currently there are three different styles in use: Saint, St and St. There are also unique links to various saints, like Paul. I propose that the title Saint be used for holy persons and that St. be used for places, institutions or other derivatives. St without a period to signify an abbreviation should be scrapped. Also because first names are common to many people the single name articles should be moved to Saint Someone. BrianCo 15:18, 25 November 2007 (EST)

• Good and logical points all. I agree. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:26, 25 November 2007 (EST)

I suspect (but can't quote examples to be sure) that there are places which are known only by "Saint something", so "St." wouldn't be appropriate.

I agree, though, with dropping "St" in favour of "St.".

As a Protestant, I don't like people like Paul being referred to as "Saint Paul", so do object to this being policy. The Bible uses "saint" of any Christian, not just ones granted that status by the Catholic Church. I do accept that simply "Paul" is not the best for an article title, but there are alternatives, such as "Saul of Tarsus", "Paul (missionary)", etc.

Philip J. Rayment 20:44, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Where St is used in place names, the inclusion of a full stop (period) or not should surely be determined by the name itself - that is, whether the local municipality (or whatever - eg the US Board on Geographical Names) uses a full stop. In other cases, I would argue in favour of St rather than St. . Too much punctuation makes the page look messy, and the trend is in favour of doing away wuith stops. Who, nowadays, writes U.S.A. and U.K. rather than USA or UK? Think of keyboard wear and tear, quite apart from anything else. Koba 06:47, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

There is currently no formal (written) policy on capitalisation of categories, although there has been un unwritten policy to use title case, probably in line with the former policy for article names.

Some discussion on this issue has occurred here and here, and possibly other places.

At the first link Learn together hinted, and stated more explicitly in the second, that there were more title-case categories than lower case categories. This seemed to me to be little more than gut feeling, so I did a rough count. There are currently 1669 categories, of which 951 comprise more than one word. Dividing those 951 categories very roughly into two groups, title case and lower case (both groups, due to the simple sorting algorithm I used, include categories that would remain unaltered under either option, such as category:United Stated Department of the Interior (sic: that needs fixing!) under upper case and category:Department of Justice under lower case) gives 426 lower case categories and 525 title case categories.

So Learn together is correct that there are more title case categories, although the difference is not enormous.

The advantage of lower-case names for article titles is that linking is easier, but this doesn't apply to categories, so the most reasonable thing to do would seem to be to make categories title case.

Any comments or objections? If we have/get agreement, I will incorporate that into the Manual of Style.

Philip J. Rayment 06:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, your thoughts on this are good, I agree with title case for Categories. But either way, it's a very good idea to make a decision on this now, as the category listing is growing, and there should be uniformity. -- Taj 06:29, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Indeed, there doesn't seem to be much sense to reinvent the wheel. We had changed about a thousand entries or so from lower to title case when that was standard we were told. There is still work to be done (a lot of it), but it didn't seem to make sense to backtrack over the same ground we have already covered. By the way, a number of the lower case categories are shells, meaning that content has basically been removed, but they still exist. May I recommend having a formal section where we can point them out to you for removal? That would seem to be wise. Learn together 10:27, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I like title case for categories, but I'll go along with the consensus. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I have no preference for category case. I think the choice should be what ever comes more naturally, but that might be quite subjective. Whatever the decision it should be explicitly stated to avoid confusion and stuck to. I don't agree with Learn together's point about not backtracking. If you're going the wrong way then you need to turn round at some stage. If it means undoing work that has been done then so be it. I can appreciate him not wanting to undo all his own good work but that shouldn't be an argument for not doing it. The main thing is that we get it right. On balance though I probably go with title case. One good thing about categories however, is that anyone can change them but article titles are restricted to sysops. BrianCo 15:15, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Not backtracking is appropriate in cases where there is no indication that backtracking would provide a better solution. Since no one commenting so far, including you, seems to believe that would be the better way to go, I am surprised you called me out on this issue. It's not rocket science. Let's not make it a bigger issue than it is. Learn together 03:01, 13 December 2007 (EST)

---

If we are going to write a policy on this, we might as well ensure that we have agreement on something else: Should categories be singular or plural? Learn together has asked me to delete Category:Musical Instruments because Category:Musical Instrument already exists. But I was under the impression that most categories were plurals. What's the thoughts on this? Philip J. Rayment 00:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure any decisions have been made in this area in the past. I've seen singular and plural in categories. In this regard, if one category has 59 entries and the other has 4, I move the entries to the category that is established. In this case it happened to be singular. I would recommend a "spot check" of categories/articles that have singular or plural forms and see which way has been the most common until now. That should at least give us information to consider. Learn together 01:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

In looking at this in more detail, the trend is strongly to plural. Let me know when a decision has been made to make this policy and I will see about implementing changes in this area as well. Learn together 18:04, 14 December 2007 (EST)

The following are groups I have come across so far that fit this criteria:

* Category:Bird

* Category:Creationist

* Category:Musical Instrument (of course)

Learn together 15:50, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Policy written

I was disappointed at the lack of response here regarding plurals, but I believe that there's been enough opportunity, and not having a policy is holding up some work. I believe that Learn together is correct regarding the trend being towards plural titles for categories, although there's plenty of examples where plurals are simply not applicable (e.g. category:New Testament).

So I've now amended the Manual of Style to include categories. If the plural bit is not clear enough, we can tweak it later.

Philip J. Rayment 05:15, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Thank you. I will be sure to adhere to the approved specifications. Learn together 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)

What's the MoS recommendation regarding book titles written by non-English-speaking authors?

For example, say you want to write about Machiavelli's "The Prince" (original title "Il Principe", apparently), would you start the article at the original title or at the most common US translation? --JakeC 18:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I believe the practice has been the common English translation. Learn together 20:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I guess that makes sense. :) Thanks for the reply! --JakeC 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I was looking at Pyrenees on Wikipedia recently, and had to wade through the language variations cluttering the opening sentence:

The Pyrenees (Spanish: Pirineos; French: Pyrénées; Catalan: Pirineus; Occitan: Pirenèus; Aragonese: Perinés; Basque: Pirinioak) are a range of mountains ...

Conservapedia, being younger, is not replete with this sort of clutter, but it does have some. This example from Sin is about as bad:

Sin (from Old English synn, from either Old Norse synd or German Sünde, from sun(d)jo it is true, from Sanskrit(?) es- it is) is any failure ...

It's not worth putting such details in a separate section (i.e. under it's own heading), but surely we shouldn't be cluttering opening sentences like this. Might I suggest that we create a template that would be an "etymology box", so that these sorts of details can float off to the right (or wherever) rather than clutter the opening sentence?

Oh, and the reason I'm posting this here is so that we don't just have a template, but we make this template a requirement.

Support? Opposition? Alternatives?

Philip J. Rayment 04:40, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I agree --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk Vote for President 11:05, 4 February 2008 (EST)

I've created the {{etymology}} template for this, and applied it to theater and sin. Philip J. Rayment 05:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Yoinked from main page's talk: Dunno if there's a better place for it, but is there an official policy on bolding titles in articles? For example, should it be "Sir Elton John" or "Sir Elton John"?

Also for military ranks, doctorates, etc. Any titles held for life (IE, not POTUS). Barikada 09:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

I don't think they should be bolded. My preference would be for something like:

Isaac Newton (Sir Isaac Newton FRS) was a ...

or

Norman Schwarzkopf (General Norman Schwarzkopf, also known as Stormin' Norman) is a retired...

However, if it forms part of his actual name, then the whole thing should be bolded, such as

Pope Benedict XVI (born Joseph Alois Ratzinger) is the current...

Ajkgordon 11:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)

In the case of "sir", I think that my preference is to bold the title as well, as is done in Isaac Newton, but probably not bold otherwise (although it might depend on normal usage). I can't give a logical reason why this must be so, but it just seems to be better, in my opinion. I will note, however, that I've often seen or heard people refer to a title as though it was part of the name, such as "My name is Dr. Fred Nurk". (By the way, I'm assuming in these comments that the person actually uses the title. There was a discussion elsewhere (Isaac Newton talk page perhaps) about using the title "Sir" when the person themself doesn't normally use it.) Philip J. Rayment 21:11, 4 February 2008 (EST)

We should elaborate on the categories section. Some guidance on when it is appropriate and inappropriate to add new categories would be helpful. --Crocoite 17:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Crocoite, do you mean new categories? I think every article should have some sort of category, its part of the basic organisation of the site. BrianCo 17:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Yes, I mean new categories. I agree with the basic necessity of categories. --Crocoite 18:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Do you have any suggestions on what those guidelines should be? Philip J. Rayment 00:38, 9 March 2008 (EST)

Large categories should be broken down when size becomes combersome or difficult to manage. It should also be appropriate for our target audience. Personally, I try to only create new categories when I can place several articles under the new category and make a logical link within the overall category structure. One of the big shortcomings of Wikipedia is the morass of categories and navigation. Generally I have found our KISS method to be easier for casual movement. It should also be noted that one of the strategies discussed by those who oppose the message of Conservapedia was to make our category system so complex or ridiculously redundant that we lose the ease of movement of the attention of people who might be curious about what our site has to offer. Any new contributors who jump in with creating a number of questionable categories and altering current category designations before even adding new articles should be looked at carefully. Learn together 03:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Learn together for your very helpful comments. I have incorporated your suggestions into my list below:

Appropriate

1. Every article should have at least one category.
2. Large categories should be broken down when size becomes combersome or difficult to manage.
3. Appropriate for our target audience (conservative and Christian).
4. Make a logical link within the overall category structure.
5. New editors should discuss appropriate categories on the articles' talk page prior to adding categories.
6. Categories are to be in title case (e.g. Australian Cities and Towns, not Australian cities and towns)
7. Categories are to be plural where applicable (e.g. Planets, not Planet, but Rail Transport).

Inappropriate

• New editors adding categories without discussing it on the articles' talk page.
• Adding categories to articles based upon "silly" grounds.
• Categories in lower case (e.g. not Australian cities and towns)
• Categories in singular tense (e.g. not Planet)
• Few members in the category - it is possible to over-categorize if the category will only have a few members.
• A similar category already exists.
• Trying to use a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Conservapedia doesn't follow Wikipedia guidlines regarding NPOV.

This is a start. --Crocoite 03:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the comments. I've changed Crocoite's bullets to numbers for easy reference. I have a few concerns with the suggestions, however.

• Learn together says that "Any new contributors who jump in with creating a number of questionable categories and altering current category designations before even adding new articles should be looked at carefully". Well, anyone, new or not, who adds questionable categories should be looked at carefully. So let's leave that point out. That leaves "Any new contributors who jump in with creating a number of categories and altering current category designations before even adding new articles should be looked at carefully". Now this I have a problem with. I know I'm at odds here with others, including Andy, but what's wrong with a new editor's first contributions being to add or alter categories, and even new ones, assuming that they are appropriate? The point we should be focusing on is providing guidelines as to what is appropriate, not whether or not the editor is new.
• Requiring editors to always discuss categories on talk pages is just bureaucracy, in my opinion (which is not to say that such things should never be discussed on talk pages).
• Crocoite's points 1 to 4 are all good, except of course that points 2 to 4 could be somewhat open to interpretation (how large is too large, for example).
• Crocoite's points 6 & 7 are valid, but already in the Manual of Style.

I'm not commenting on Crocoite's "inappropriate" points, as they are mostly just the negatives of the first list.

Perhaps we should be putting some numbers on things. Something like "any categories with fewer than x entries should not be broken down without prior discussion".

I realise that my comments are probably not very helpful (and of course they should be taken as being from me as an editor, not as an administrator), but perhaps I'll have better ideas after some more feedback. Please feel free to disagree with me.

Philip J. Rayment 04:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly seems to have made his views on categorisation clear here. If it's his wish that users can't easily find articles dealing with the pernicious nature of liberals we should respect that. Tho personally I can't see much point in producing articles that visitors are unlikely to find due to the difficulty in second-guessing the somewhat esoteric titles for use in the search box. BenHyme 07:56, 9 March 2008 (EDT)