Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Contents"
(Article naming system) |
(→Sourcing: Hey, all, should we source contents more carefully?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==Article naming system == | + | ==Article naming system== |
When I said/say "Follow naming system', I was referring to not using names of the form "DEC xxx". Although some pages are called "{organization} {thing}" (e.g. [[Interlan NI1010A/NI2010A Ethernet interface]] (which is actually slightly incorrect; Interlan called it the 'Ethernet Communications Controller'; I will have to fix that), in general I don't use 'DEC' to start page names unless either i) the rest is a common term that might be used by someone else (e.g. [[DEC Alpha]]), or ii) it is a natural part of the name (e.g. [[DEC standard power wire colour coding]]). (Yes, I know that making DEC pages special is itself inconsistent! But the page names would all be longer, if not: 'DEC PDP-10' instead of [[PDP-10]].) | When I said/say "Follow naming system', I was referring to not using names of the form "DEC xxx". Although some pages are called "{organization} {thing}" (e.g. [[Interlan NI1010A/NI2010A Ethernet interface]] (which is actually slightly incorrect; Interlan called it the 'Ethernet Communications Controller'; I will have to fix that), in general I don't use 'DEC' to start page names unless either i) the rest is a common term that might be used by someone else (e.g. [[DEC Alpha]]), or ii) it is a natural part of the name (e.g. [[DEC standard power wire colour coding]]). (Yes, I know that making DEC pages special is itself inconsistent! But the page names would all be longer, if not: 'DEC PDP-10' instead of [[PDP-10]].) | ||
But in general I try and follow the rule 'use what the original contemporary documentation used' - mostly because that is easy to find out, and then one does not have to think about choosing something! There are some places which fail to do that (e.g. [[KL10]] - although now that I [http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp10/KL10/EK-OKL10-TM_KL10_TechRef_Aug84.pdf look], that might be correct): [[KA11 CPU]] should be 'KA11 Processor' (because I started calling all the PDP-11 CPU pages 'xx11 CPU' - although DEC has a lack of consistency in their naming for them; e.g. they call the [[KD11-E CPU]] just [http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/1134/EK-KD11E-TM-001_KD11-E_Central_Processor_Maintenance_Manual_Dec76.pdf "KD11-E"]). But I am slowly fixing many of them. [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 13:07, 22 June 2022 (CEST) | But in general I try and follow the rule 'use what the original contemporary documentation used' - mostly because that is easy to find out, and then one does not have to think about choosing something! There are some places which fail to do that (e.g. [[KL10]] - although now that I [http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp10/KL10/EK-OKL10-TM_KL10_TechRef_Aug84.pdf look], that might be correct): [[KA11 CPU]] should be 'KA11 Processor' (because I started calling all the PDP-11 CPU pages 'xx11 CPU' - although DEC has a lack of consistency in their naming for them; e.g. they call the [[KD11-E CPU]] just [http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/1134/EK-KD11E-TM-001_KD11-E_Central_Processor_Maintenance_Manual_Dec76.pdf "KD11-E"]). But I am slowly fixing many of them. [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 13:07, 22 June 2022 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Sourcing== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although we have historically not been as anal about noting the source of things as Wikipedia is, maybe we should be, now that I think about it? People ''do'' make mistakes (to err is human, after all), and having to trawl though several large documents (almost always given in 'Further reading'/'External links', thankfully) to verify something that might be erroneous is probably non-optimal. Careful sourcing has been a hallmark of scholarship for generations, probably for that exact reason. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mind, I'm not suggesting that we should make a major effort to ''go back'' and update existing content, to add sourcing - we just don't have the person-power available for such a project. I'm also not suggesting we ''mandate'' sourcing on new content. I'm just thinking like 'if you have the energy, it would be good to source new content'. Or is just listing the sources in Further reading/External links good enough? | ||
| + | |||
| + | If we do decide we want to start sourcing, I should look and see if the Wikipedia <nowiki><ref></nowiki> system is installed here; it might not be. [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 13:00, 30 October 2024 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 13:01, 30 October 2024
Article naming system
When I said/say "Follow naming system', I was referring to not using names of the form "DEC xxx". Although some pages are called "{organization} {thing}" (e.g. Interlan NI1010A/NI2010A Ethernet interface (which is actually slightly incorrect; Interlan called it the 'Ethernet Communications Controller'; I will have to fix that), in general I don't use 'DEC' to start page names unless either i) the rest is a common term that might be used by someone else (e.g. DEC Alpha), or ii) it is a natural part of the name (e.g. DEC standard power wire colour coding). (Yes, I know that making DEC pages special is itself inconsistent! But the page names would all be longer, if not: 'DEC PDP-10' instead of PDP-10.)
But in general I try and follow the rule 'use what the original contemporary documentation used' - mostly because that is easy to find out, and then one does not have to think about choosing something! There are some places which fail to do that (e.g. KL10 - although now that I look, that might be correct): KA11 CPU should be 'KA11 Processor' (because I started calling all the PDP-11 CPU pages 'xx11 CPU' - although DEC has a lack of consistency in their naming for them; e.g. they call the KD11-E CPU just "KD11-E"). But I am slowly fixing many of them. Jnc (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2022 (CEST)
Sourcing
Although we have historically not been as anal about noting the source of things as Wikipedia is, maybe we should be, now that I think about it? People do make mistakes (to err is human, after all), and having to trawl though several large documents (almost always given in 'Further reading'/'External links', thankfully) to verify something that might be erroneous is probably non-optimal. Careful sourcing has been a hallmark of scholarship for generations, probably for that exact reason.
Mind, I'm not suggesting that we should make a major effort to go back and update existing content, to add sourcing - we just don't have the person-power available for such a project. I'm also not suggesting we mandate sourcing on new content. I'm just thinking like 'if you have the energy, it would be good to source new content'. Or is just listing the sources in Further reading/External links good enough?
If we do decide we want to start sourcing, I should look and see if the Wikipedia <ref> system is installed here; it might not be. Jnc (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2024 (CET)
