Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)

Namespaces and Page Names Ending with a Colon

So I noticed I can create a page name ending with a colon (e.g. "Page:", "Article:", and "Discussion:"), unless the name (sans the colon) is a registered namespace prefix (e.g. "Help:", "Category:", and "Talk:"). So what happens if the admin registers the namespace "Discussion" when the page Discussion: exists? —Sledged (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whenever a developer makes new namespace or interwiki prefixes, nasty things happen to existing links and pages. There is a maintenance script that runs through the raw database tables and fixes things like that, moving pages and changing links, to make sure that there are no invalid links (that point somewhere other than where the software think they do). Happy‑melon 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Italicized titles

RfC Please see here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comic books

The addition of {{italic title}} to {{Infobox comic book title}} has effectively made italics the standard for comic book titles. I have no particular opinion on this matter, I just thought it should be noted. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Slash disclaimer still true?

Is this bullet still true from WP:NC-SLASH?

• Subpages are still enabled in the talk namespace as they are widely used for archiving old discussion. Therefore if an article has a forward slash in its name, its corresponding talk page may display a redundant subpage level-up link at the top (for example Talk:R/2004 S 1 has a link to Talk:R at the top).

It seems no longer true as of MediaWiki 1.16. I created some test pages in a namespace that has no subpages, while its talk namespace does, and no bogus parent links showed up. Djbwiki (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at Talk:R/2004 S 1 right now... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still seeing them at Talk:R/2004 S 1 and Talk:AC/DC, so I guess it must still be true. (Perhaps in your test example the higher-level pages didn't exist - if they're redlinks they won't be displayed.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Forbidden character - #

I think it should be explained that # can't be used specifically because it's a location hash, NOT because of 'wikitext syntax.' Avindratalk / contribs 13:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And it's used as a location hash in wikitext syntax, right? So why is it "NOT because of wikitext syntax"?--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Location hashes are a general web standard. They're definitely not limited to wikitext. Also, afaik, they do not originate from wikitext. Avindratalk / contribs 15:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they're definitely not from wikitext. It's defined in rfc. The official name seems to be fragment identifier, though I and others I know refer to it simply as the "location hash." Avindratalk / contribs 15:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like with some of the other restricted characters, their special uses aren't exclusive to wikitext; but it's the specific fact that they're used that way in wikitext that prevents their being used in Wikipedia article titles. --Kotniski (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski. # has a special meaning in url's but it would have been possible for MediaWiki to allow it in article titles and wikitext if MediaWiki automatically changed it to something else in URLs. It would be an unnecessary complication to get into this instead of simply saying that it cannot be used in page titles, as we do now. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

video or audio that has no permussio

Yes I dont understand how something ca/ be video or audio and reproduced or sold with permussion or even knowledge just because someine diesnt understand stupid computers dies that give simeone the right to take advantage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.168 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)