Naming Conventions – Bohemia Interactive Community talk

Could we expand this list somewhat (go a bit more into detail)? So that something like the mess with my lists [Actions] & [EventHandlers] won't happen again...;) --Kronzky 00:48, 23 July 2006 (CEST)

We can. --Djura 19:45, 23 July 2006 (CEST)

Proper examples of naming

• Operation Flashpoint: Actions List
• Template:Infobox/Squad
• Category:Scripting Topics
• Category:Armed Assault: Editing

</draft>

How about adding the entries for Arma2/ArmaII ... which one is more 'correct' ? According to the devlopers blog at BI Website, both are fine. Whats your take? --PhilippRauch 17:27, 15 June 2009 (CEST)

Arma 2

What's the correct naming for Arma 2 in wiki? If you check Category:ArmA_2 there's Arma 2, Arma 2 and ArmA2 being used. Also ARMA 2 is often used outside the wiki. ARMA 2 - The Name Tale article doesn't give definitive answer either except that long name, Armed Assault 2 shouldn't be used at all. Anyways we should stick to one short name whichever it is. --Rok 17:11, 31 July 2009 (CEST)

In early September 2007 Maruk created a category called Arma 2. Also in May of this year Suma created a template for the Arma 2 name which returned the name Arma 2, but since then someone else modified it to return ARMA 2. Seeing as both Maruk and Suma called it Arma 2, my guess is that's the way it should be written. --MSG Trit 20:22, 31 July 2009 (CEST)

Discontinuity and Inconsistency

Considering even the naming of this project page doesn't follow the naming conventions it outlines, and that Str considers Arma 3 Actions to be an idyllic improvement to Arma 3: Actions (also contrary to the stated conventions), I really think this needs sorting out - completely.

If any continuity is desired at all, it must surely start right here?

So:

• ArmA is never right and all current pages named that way should be moved (and redirected) to the Arma equivalent?
• Arma:Something, Arma: Something, Arma 2:Something, Arma 2: Something, Arma 3:Something, and Arma 3: Something should all be moved (and redirected) to their colon-less equivalent?
  • Assuming colons are out, spacing isn't an issue, but if colons are acceptable or desired, should the convention be to include a space between the colon and the subject?
    • i.e. is Arma 3:Something or Arma 3: Something desired?
  • Once answered, do these conventions apply across the board, or should e.g. Categories be named in another way?
    • i.e. Category:Arma 3:Something is desired whilst Arma 3: Something (or vice versa) is also desired?

This project page for example states that "When creating new topics or categories, use the common practice of [GameTitleName: Subject]" (note the space, and the colon (which Str is apparently opposed to)), but is itself named without the space. Is this because it's a project page, and not a game title or Category page? Correction: Yes it is. (the project name is a namespace like "Category" and "Template" and thus (my bad) should be "Namespace:Pagename" (no space).

So when and when not do what rules apply? Should we just ignore this page and make it up as we go along?

If continuity matters (and I think it does), we need a far clearer place to start, and to fix everything that doesn't currently conform, or we should expect the discontinuity to only get worse. -- Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 23:24, 28 April 2014 (CEST)

* Consistency matters

* Arma case agreed

* Colon-less I am okay with, while the use of : would be fine with me too

* Is the : required for "Category" and "Template"?

* Make sure a bot is used for these mass renames to avoid spam in the change history

--Kju (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2014 (CEST)

The first colon is needed after the namespace, but no more are needed after that.

Absolutely agreed about the bot, once we've agreed on what it should be doing :-/ -- Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 09:06, 29 April 2014 (CEST)

I've created {{Name}} with the original intention of handling possible errors in {{Command}} and {{Function}} inputs, but realised whilst constructing it, that it can be useful for handling general naming convention situations elsewhere too.

I'd appreciate it being reviewed for output accuracy and possible omissions (I'm a noob to the world of BI products).

But furthering this discussion, I wonder if page naming convention should be via the commonly understood use of "/" ?

i.e. Instead of the somewhat complex nature of naming a page for e.g. "Operation Flashpoint: Resistance: Event Handlers" we could place all pages related to OFP in sub pages via a slash, then all sub pages related to those following another slash etc.

So a page name might then be "Operation Flashpoint/Resistance/Event Handlers" - nice and simple, no worries about what colons go where, and I think universally understandable.

Has this been considered or even tried in the past? -- Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 04:24, 30 April 2014 (CEST)