User:Cpiral/Howto

Wikilinkers
Wikilinkers please
 * Change the underscores back to spaces when they've copied a page name from the URL.
 * Don't mind using redirects instead of page names.
 * Pursue the state of the art of the newly expanding discipline of wikilinking.

Don't overlink, but esp. don't overlink redlinks. Craft what is more informative objectively, less beautiful subjectively. Red linking is one of those arts that is trying to become a science. Red linking is in the category of arts trying to become sciences, as are Science is the discovery of primal, ancient ways, whose existence is virtually little more than some global standard language for the interface of crafting substance.
 * language of all kinds
 * interfaces of all kinds
 * markup syntax of all kinds
 * color schemes

Redlinkers
The following are points from my green print for red links, gleaned from my research prompted that talk page.

Red links serve to They portend to vouch-safe the scope of both the article and the wiki. Actual wiki scope deals with notability when the article is created. Until then the red link is largely opinion, ignored for constructive reason.
 * partition content
 * hold title
 * guide editors

Follow the ladder.

Content is main article prose (and graphics.) The title is the topic, echoed in the opening prose. The headings are subtopics, and listed in the table of contents. One article is many subtopics.

Subject outlines are the list of topics under one subject. One subject outline is many articles. Some of those are wikilinks, and some of them inform of missing articles. The missing articles are in black, but could be the title of a topic.

A table of contents is an outline of a topic. Its elements are section headings, which are subtopics.

A subject outline is the outline of an encyclopedic subject. Its elements are the article titles, which are topics (divided into namespaces). Red links are black topics. You will not see a redlink in a subject outline, and you should not see, except for commissioners workings, a redlink in a list article. (The mere existence of a list item, by definition, is notable, and qualifies for an article, given reliable sources. It need not be red, except for the attractive nature it has to a few editors, those few working hard to make the list complete.

A category is a list of all the wikilinks to existing articles, and will not have, just as subject outlines will not have, any red links at all, and for the same reason a list article need not have them.

The need for redlinks in list articles would evaporate if there were no such thing as a priority commissioner. Else it would be up to the public to pick from the black "links" which article they wanted to write, for there person reasons.

The need for redlinks in prose would evaporate if there were no such thing as an encyclopedia, and the subsequent need for numerous knowledgeable persons who could, gaging the word size of a non-existing subject, redlink an educated guess concerning an area of a articulation but previously not commissioned, perfectly sizable body of notable knowledge.

Commissioners play smart, but the most intelligent growth indicators of an encyclopedia, the main competitive difference between encyclopedias is the subject outline. All black entries in the subject outline need to find there way to a red link in the prose of articles.

Subject is Meta-topical. Topic is meta-contents. Categories and lists are just indexes. Red links deserve preservation and encouragement in the abstraction layers, not the indexes.

Red links whose topic belongs to the article are dumb (not saying anything encyclopedic). They are not stupid, but they are driven by commissioners, self-appointed to direct the growth of the article as defined by the dictum "turn red list items into blue list items". Red links whose topics do not border the topic of the article in such a way as to either support the topic or be supported by the topic of the article are improper.

Red link is a member of the set of syntax highlighting, which is for programmers, in this case, wiki-based social programming.

Subject outlines can't get full enough, and the stock in the category can't get pure enough, But subject-outline redlinks are mostly filled after the wiki is worked a while. For a new wiki, and the numerous redlinks, see http://crdd.osdd.net/indipedia/index.php/Simulated_annealing.

Categories are lists built from articles, so they can't be red in their direction, but List articles can be red in their direction. Also list articles are a potential category stuffer.

How to love the Search box
The Search box, because of it's name completion behavior, is also The search box is not a spellchecker. (Redirects occur for common misspellings.) A browser application offers a spell checker.
 * an index of existing page titles. It is updated in real-time.
 * an index of a user's subpages, even their deepest subpage.
 * a wikilink gadget. Adding a wikilink is a common editing task.

This love is not frustrated. Mouse over and click "Search" if you want to search. Pressing the  key activates the Go (to a page) button. This procedure recommends:
 * "Show preview before Edit box" in.
 * "Search all Namespaces" in.

Discussion Pages
For my view on the process and state of Wikipedia policy consensus, see Cpiral/my personal consensus.

To add weight to an opinion on a discussion page 1)use it's Archives. 2) Use the toolbox "What links here". Look at the linker page's subject, section wording and link-display wording. This will serve as a candid, neutral poll of what the actual users think the purpose and content of the page should be. Sometimes others can see you better than you can see yourself. Don't be so self-centered. Reach out. For example, the phrase "Don't be afraid" links to "WP:Be bold" from Talk page guidelines.


 * talk pages: Just what is meant by "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."? Wiktionary defines "opinion" as "A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue." That person is not you!


 * The purpose of the talk page is ??? I quote: "reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation"; "explain your views; ...voice an opinion on something and ... explain why"; "convincing others and reaching consensus". And that is what the talk page would seem to be when you actually visit them.


 * Q. Why the bold statement "no personal views"?


 * A. It's a highly advanced theory of communication for highly advanced beings, and I've yet to sense it on a talk page. It's buried in the Stay objective section: (edited here) A viewpoint is not a personal view, it's an objective view. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how a viewpoint obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral, and has an objective tone (which means it includes conflicting viewpoints). Bolding mine. These ideas, they are mine, and I get to write them on discussion pages like the guideline doesn't clarify.  Q. The answer given is not my personal view, it is my objective view. Don't we all have objective consciousness? Don't we all speak the truth on discussion pages?
 * A. Best not to think so on Wikipedia anywhere. Someone else gets to be cited, not me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (And if it was anything less, it would be an "eiCITEobedient", not an "inPSYCHOphilia.)

Which media to use in collaborative efforts

 * 'Comm-media'

To be on-time is serious. To be late, one logically switches to fun mode, and to be very late or altogether absent is to be on the way to the funny farm.

The media used for person to person communication are telephone, email, chat-line, pager, and discussion pages.

If we define:

bandwidth as how quickly two persons can exchange after an initiation by one, and

interrupt priority as how alarming the presence of an awaiting message is,

then bandwidth is directly proportional to the interrupt priority.


 * In order of increasing convenience, there is
 * meeting (highly inconvenient)
 * telephone
 * chat lines
 * pager
 * message boards (most convenient)
 * discussion pages
 * email
 * (Somehow to convene has become inconvenient. Oh well.)

How to collaborate on a project:


 * Use lower bandwidth to setup appointments for higher bandwidth. Report activity to the message board.
 * Use an email to finding again, a lost or degraded conversation being recorded on a discussion page. Message forums offer the same information levels as email except that the receivers at a forum has more information to lurk or watch over. This keeps forums more concentrated on topic for watchers.
 * Email is a covert collaboration (a necessary contradiction).
 * Forums are best for public scrutiny and to portray personal prowess.