Talk:Papers and Presentations

From sasCommunity
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a really nice wiki app. Is there an easy way to use "real name" instead of "username"? Obviously mine isn't that difficult to figure out, but other authors will prove to be an issue. --kimlebouton (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2013 (CDT)

Unfortunately, no (to the best of our knowledge). The page name had to be based on the ID and not the real name for a number of reasons. But I agree it would be nice and we plan to continue to look for extensions or upgrades that might allow us to also display the authors (optional) real name. --Don Henderson (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2013 (CDT)
Of course, if you use your real name as your user ID you should not have a problem. MediaWiki software does allow creation of a user ID with spaces and mixed upper and lower cases, as well as special characters. It is just that most people don't create a user ID that way. The alternative solution would be to "Move" the page to include the real name, unless that is going to cause problems with having redirection pages in the Presentations namespace. - Cameron (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2014 (CDT)
Thanks for the suggestion. This is a good idea and is very doable for the wiki literate users. Will do some testing on our development site to assess how this might work.--Don Henderson (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2014 (CDT)
Oh, and while we are on the subject of testing, you might want to test if the wiki-widget that does the page refresh/redirect on the those papers and presentations category pages could be replaced by a wiki redirect link instead. This would mean the wiki would serve the redirected page immediately, rather than having to rely on the browser running a script to request the target page. Scripts can be disabled on browsers, while wiki server functionality is not affected by browser settings. - Cameron (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2014 (CDT)
I spent a lot of time trying to get that to work, but was unable to. That is why I, very reluctantly, opted for the JavaScript redirect (with a "click here" link when that does not work). The problem is that the MediaWiki redirect does not allow for magic words to be used in the redirect. However, for users that choose to move their page (preliminary testing on your suggestion looks promising), we could advise them to update their category page as well.

Categorisation of Papers and Presentations pages

I notice that none of the Papers and Presentations pages have a category, neither do the corresponding Category pages for these pages. Should they appear as subcategories in Category:Presentations? - Cameron (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2014 (CDT)

I notice that I have not consistently put my own papers into the category:Presentations (which I should be doing), but it seems like it might be crowded to put the Papers and Presentations pages there also. Is this what you were thinking? --Art Carpenter (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (CDT)
The inconsistency for the presence / absence of the Category:Presentations is probably due to it being missing in one of the templates. perhaps the one used for pharmasug. --Art Carpenter (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2014 (CDT)
Art, I believe that Cameron's point (which I agree with) is that, for example, that the Papers and Presentations and the individual pages for each author (e.g., Presentations:ArtCarpenter Papers and Presentations) should have the category tag for Category:Presentations. Putting that category tag in each individual paper would cause the category to include so many papers as to render it somewhat unusable. But if each paper is in the category for it's author, which is then in the Category:Presentations we provide a reasonable navigation path. --Don Henderson (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2014 (CDT)
Yes, that's right. I am not suggesting that all Papers and Presentations be dumped into the single top level category of Presentations. Rather I am suggesting that each of the category pages become subcategories in the top level category, perhaps even with an intermediate category for all the by author subcategories. You could also have other categories for papers by user group, by meeting, by forum or by year, etc. What would be left in the top level category would be those papers that didn't fit into any category. The reason for crowding is that people use a top level category and do not create subcategories, or add the article to both the generic category and a more specific one. Perhaps authors need some advice about how categories are supposed to be structured and expanded. Unfortunately, nobody has written the necessary explaination, yet. (Note to self: another thing to add to the to do list.)
Also, while it would be a good idea to amend the template, when you track down which template needs editing, once the individual articles are created they can each be categorised directly. My question is about what is the best category to use? - and is some thought needed for improving the category hierarchy in this area? And because the top level category is getting crowded it now needs some sub-categories to give it more structure. - Cameron (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2014 (CDT)