User talk:Dan Tobias

CSS

We need to figure out how to deal with disambiguation pages. It is obvious that CSS can be either Cascading Style Sheets or Content Scramble System, and I don't think this particular wiki should give preference to one known value over another if the abbreviation can be expanded to an unambiguous name. That's why I linked to CSS on the DVD page, rather than linking directly to Content Scramble System. Unless we plan to sort this out immediately, it might be best to leave that link in place, so that we don't lose track of it. Thoughts? Gphemsley (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the current CSS article should be moved to Cascading Style Sheets, and a Content Scramble System article created, with CSS as a disambig article linking to both. But in that case, any specific links to a particular kind of CSS should link directly to the proper one of the articles, not the disambig one. Dan Tobias (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. And created Template:Disambiguation to keep track of disambiguation pages. Gphemsley (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Just a heads-up: You can link to Wikipedia (and a select number of other wikis) using the regular wikilinking syntax by using the relevant wikiprefix. For example: Wikipedia:User:GPHemsley or Wikipedia:Archive Team. That way you can differentiate more intimate links to Wikipedia from truly external links to other websites. GPHemsley (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Given this site's founder's opinions of Wikipedia, I'm not sure he'd like to get "more intimate" with it, but I'll keep that in mind anyway. Dan Tobias (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar

Another wikitip: You can change the links in the sidebar by editing MediaWiki:Sidebar (admins only). You might choose to remove "Current events" and "Help" and add some of the links from the Main page, for example. It takes a somewhat special syntax, though, so you'll probably want to consult mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar for guidance. GPHemsley (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Dan Tobias (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

re Talk:Text-based_data

How do you feel about splitting the Markup languages section out of Document and a few of the file formats out of Text-based data into a Markup page/category? For instance textile and markdown have different ontologies but are more similar than not. I'm willing to move stuff over if you define the category. As you mentioned on Talk:Text-based data, 'Categorization is getting pretty chaotic' Sethwoodworth (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of stuff in the ontology probably needs rethinking... any attempt to categorize things starts to get messy and inconsistent after a while, and shows the biases of whoever set them up in the first place and whatever lines of thought they happened to be having at the time, which might not end up being relevant later. (See the Dewey Decimal System categories, for instance; it devotes lots of number space to different aspects of Christian churches, then shoves all "Other Religions" in a small section.) Yes, markup probably deserves its own category (though HTML then would belong there, but it's also in the Web category; should things be in just one category or multiple ones?) Dan Tobias (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hrrm, I see. Maybe things need multiple categories. The CDC's public health image library uses multiple ontologies pretty effectively [1] For now I wont sweat it too much. Search works pretty well. Sethwoodworth (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)