Editable titles - unlike unflexible CamelCase pagetitles - can be changed and are translateable to all languages.
You create an editable title by putting: [ the camel-case title and - devided by a space - the editable title ] Like this it’s done on this wiki here. On others it is different.
Use an URL instead of the camel-case title for creating editable multilingual links out into multilingual wikilandia.
You can also use a nearlink like MeatBall:WikiSpam. Writing this as an editable title should be done like that:
Always use editable titles within the multilingual experiment please. Never use camel-case titles. Use editable titles outsides the multilingual experiment as well as they are the future. No camel-case nowhere at all in wikilandia. It soon will be automated and actual even less work than writing camel-case titles.
I see wikilandia more as a whole than ever now, a multilingual whole I see. We can not continue with camel-bone-titles?. I’m most convinced that the solution to make this one big soup is to finally add a layer of skin to the whole thing. Cover up the bones that stick out of all the different wiki-creatures that populate wikilandia today and turn it into one collective, super-human-hive-mind-beeing. A multilingual Wikipedia will be just a tiny tiny beginning of it.
I practize the new way here to get a feel for it. I’m convinced that on the long run it saves energy. Some day all the camel-bone-titles anyway will have to be changed to something better readable and - most important - someting multilingual translateable. That’s why. – Mattis Manzel 2004-08-20 09:55 UTC
This idea causes some problems. What shall be displayed in the recent changes? How to ever get them work decently with editable titles? How to ever resync editable page titles that have been changed - by the people working on the page hopefully - not only within the specific wiki but also synch the editable links that point to the page from out of multilingual wikilandia all around. This isn’t just a little change, this is drastic. It’s ineviteable and urgent too, I think. And there is a high danger of everything dropping into a chaotic pagetitle-link-language-babel if one would try it with todays wikilandia completely. One definetely should not do that.
One definitely should do the following:
Interested persons choose an engine that is likely to serve best for the desired features. This engine gets seperately developed on further. The original engine and the new one get forked. Wikiwork carries on in wikilandia as usual - maybe here and there a little teasing editable link or editable title where the [CamelboneTitle? camelbone title] (I feel tempted to create this page, but I won’t) is especially ugly, just to remind the camelbone hoards that a better world is possible. Else work on this new engine and make it work. When it’s halfway ready Wikipedia will look at it and I’d personally not only hope but I think there is a good likelihood that this will within few month explode into a multilingual wikipedia of an enormous potential and finally a multilingual and collectively organized world. Nobody will ever again think about say “building and running an atomic plant” without being integrated, helping and being helped in a multilingual global network. Forgive me my rude words please, but this piece of software I’m proposing and trying to head for here will be of similar importance to the development of us Homo sapiens sapiens than the invention of the wheel. I’m in a funny late-august-day noon mood, so why not just go on (I will anyway have to give up on it before it will sprout - it’s always like that, how strange the world of [ZauBer? Zauber] is). It wasn’t us - sapiens sapiens - who invented the wheel. I was our dear ancestor Homo sapiens. By inventing the wheel zie added a “sapiens” to zies name. I’ve already before promised the peace Nobel prize for wiki, it was on meatball-wiki, I think. Lemme here suggest to go for a piece of software that creates a fair reason to add a third sapiens to our name. Question: If I’d say: “Just kidding!”, would you still believe me? – Mattis Manzel 2004-08-20 10:49 UTC
I first thought it’s good to points out that this is a link and therefore the first letter of an editable page title or link should be always a majuscula.
But the color does that job already, so it is not nesseccary to point it out again.
That gives us the freedom to use the editable titles as they are correct in the grammatical context. Wiki first get’s the chance to be written in correct and beautiful text.
Which one is better? The first. I agree. Setting it into plural wouldn’t be a problem.
Above you see how it was done before the wheel got reinvented
In German there is often a problem with titles containing adjectives. These are bent in German according to the grammatical context and thus the CamelboneTitle? is simply wrong. No problem with editable titles anymore.
Let me pretend the multilingual Oddmuse (or whatever other engine) is ready:
It is useful to write editable titles.
You save the page and the software searches it’s database. It finds an entrance:
Editable title (possible forms):
It is usefual to write editable titles.
You change the pages and write:
Editable titles are useful.
Editable titles are useful.
Editierbare Titel sind wunderbar.
Editierbare Titel sind wunderbar.
It works fine in whatever language and grammatical context:
Das Bearbeiten eines editierbaren Titels erfordert Aufmerksamkeit.
There are the editable titles, sure.
Mediawiki is one inperium and the camel case wikis are the other. A these use different syntax for pagenames. Let’s take for example pagename. PageName? and Pagename - both are wrong. It must be pagenames. The color is enough to point out it is a link.
Every engine has to introduce clean linking, simple.
It will be like this:
In edit mode you do not tag page-titles anymore. The wiki compares it with the [CleanPageTitleDatabase? clean pagetitle database], checks out what of your text makes a link and presents it to you as a link in the preview. Making a page title only a link the first time it is mentioned in the text makes sense, I think.