Talk:Main Page

From COPTR
Revision as of 15:56, 20 November 2013 by Johanvanderknijff (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Use of Level 1 section headings

I just had a first stab at some editing an existing entry, and creating a new one. One small thing I noticed: all of the pages I've seen use Level 1 headings for the main sections, but this is discouraged by the MediaWiki documentation (esp. since Level 1 is already used for the main heading of each entry). See e.g. here:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help_talk:Formatting#Level_1

And also:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting

So maybe it would be better to change those to level 2 (also in all cases I've seen the child sections use level 3 headings)? Not a big deal of course but it's a bit ugly and it's probably easier to fix this now than postponing it to a later stage (also existing entries will most likely be used as a template for creating new ones, so the problem will get progressively worse if left as it is). I suppose this is also something that might mess up attempts at automated text extraction. johanvanderknijff (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point - I didn't know about this recommendation. It should be possible to automated this transformation using the Pywikibot framework and the mwparserfromhell. We could change the tool template now and use a bot to modify the rest? Andy Jackson (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Great!

johanvanderknijff (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Purpose field in infobox

Another thing I noticed is that for most entries the purpose field in the infobox more or less repeats what's already in the Description section. So maybe it's better to leave it out altogether (on the other hand it might be useful for automated discovery/analysis)? johanvanderknijff (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The intention was the other way around - that the 'purpose' field was a brief description that might be published and re-used in other forms (due to being in the infobox), and the Description section should be more detailed. Andy Jackson (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought as well. For some existing entries both are identical though, so it wasn't immediately clear.

johanvanderknijff (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Contributors

Jukervin (10.2%), Danielle Plumer (11.8%), Chlara (17.8%), Prwheatley (5.6%), Andy Jackson (24.8%), Johanvanderknijff (29.9%)