User:Drew R. Smith/MOSArchive

Capitalisation Redirects

Drew, you don't need to create redirects for miscapitalisations because searches are case-insensitive. Redirects are only needed for alternative spellings etc, not alternative capitalisations. Caesar Schinas 12:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Every time I search for an article in caps it takes me to a blank page. I think the first letter is the only one that is case insensitive. Plus, it leaves redlinks whenever it is miscapitalised in articles.Drew R. Smith 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is true for links like Natural Number, but not if you search for "Natural Number" in the search box at the top of the page. Peter Schmitt 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd. A search for Hawaiian Bible, after creation of Hawaiian bible, and before the redirect, gave me a message that no page existed with that name.Drew R. Smith 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you enter teh name and press "search", it will search for the string you entered, ignoring capitalisation, but it will only show a message at the top saying that a page with the exact title exist if the capitalisation is the same. However, if you enter the name and press "go", it will take you to any page with that name, regardless of capitalisation. Caesar Schinas 13:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories & Line of succession

Hi Drew, you are contributing here about as long as I. So I am surprised that you do not yet know that categories are used for administrative purpose only. For lists (of kings) /Catalogs subpages to appropriate articles are used. In your case, probably Hawaii/Catalogs/Kings or similar. (See CZ:Categories)

Concerning the "Line of succession" I do not know what CZ policy is. My personal opinion is, that they bloat up a minimum of information that could be given simpler and better in one sentence. Probalbly, in most cases, it need not be given at all: If the corresponding catalog is well-organized and commented an in-text link at an appropriate place (e.g., from "eleventh") would be sufficient and more appropriate.

Peter Schmitt 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea about the categories. I guess I'll go ahead and tag them with a speedydelete template. Thats a shame though, they're so much easier to use than those catalogue subpages...

As for the lines of succession, I have always liked having them stand apart from the text. Being able to view all the hawaiian heads of state from Pili to Governorn Linda Lingle is much simpler than having to search the text for a link that may or may not take you where you want to go. Also, the succession box isn't new, nor is it unused. All I did was change it to use the {{box}} template, and make the color customizable. If you go to {{succession box}} and check the "what links here", you can see that many articles already incorporate this.

I do agree that the succession box is a little bloated, and could stand to be toned down a bit. I'll take a look at it and see what I can do.Drew R. Smith 11:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that one of the reasons might be that lists should not be merely collected automatically, but be conciously edited and organized by an author (for better value). Maybe someone can tell us more about it?
As far as the succession lines/boxes are concerned, I am curious if and how others will comment them. Peter Schmitt 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the concern with categories. At WP, I've seen articles on one subject end up in categories on a comletely different subject because one of the templates used automatically appends it. In my defense, I was editing and organizing the contents of that category consciously. But again, I can see the issues that could arise, and will stop.

Again, the succession boxes have been in use long before I got here. I doubt anyone will have much to say, if at all.Drew R. Smith

On second thought, I'll take a look at the catalog subpage, and see if I can fit the info into that. I do think the successor and predecessor need to be clearly set apart from the text.Drew R. Smith 11:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you did not think of this possibility: You can copy the category lists to your sandbox or to a catalog before deleting. And as suggestion, I think, the catalog(s) would best be ordered chronologically or as table (and/or using the r template?). Concerning the succession boxes once more: it was/is just my personal opinion. Peter Schmitt 12:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that they should be ordered chronologically. I was going change them as soon as I could figure out how to tweak the DEFAULTSORT: thingy to do what I want. Thanks for the suggestion about copying the lists before deleting them. That gave me the idea of using a blank category (i.e. adding a page to a category, but leaving it blank) so I can get the list without actually creating the category. Then I can just remove the category tags when I'm done with them.

Concerning the succession boxes once more: I halfway agree with you. ;-) Drew R. Smith 12:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on books...

In response to your question, I don't really collaborate on such articles. Sorry, I just don't have an opinion right now about it. Russell D. Jones 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)