How we refer to the wiki, We could be more consistent Options

[mjb2006]

I noticed a few things:

• This forum's subheading refers to the "Hydrogenaudio Wiki Directory and the Wiki's contained within".
• The Portal page's Navigation panel refers to the wiki's main/front/home page as "Knowledgebase Project".
• The wiki's main page refers to the wiki as "Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase (HAK)" and "HAK".
• The wiki's main page refers to the wiki not as a wiki, but as "a wiki-styled resource".

Can we agree on a few things, for the sake of consistency?

1. It's a wiki, not a wiki-styled resource. User pepoluan made the change (it did say "wiki" originally), but I don't see any justification for it; wiki is a general term for a type of user-editable website, and no distinction is normally made between types of wikis. It's not a brand name.

2. The wiki's one and only title is The Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase. Hydrogenaudio can be abbreviated HA, but HAK is somewhat awkward with its "hack" connotation, and isn't referenced as such anywhere but on the homepage, as far as I know (AFAIK). It's just "the wiki", "our wiki", "the HA wiki", "the HA Knowledgebase", "the Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase", or "the Hydrogenaudio wiki", whatever people want to say. So let's drop mentions of HAK.

3. Knowledgebase Project sounds like something other than the Knowledgebase itself. Perhaps "Knowledgebase main page" or "Knowledgebase (wiki)"?

4. This forum's subheading is a disaster. We have the mysterious "Wiki Directory" (its front/main/home page, I assume) and a reference to the rest of the wiki's contents as if each article/topic page is a "wiki" too. How about we just say "Discuss issues pertaining to The Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase."? (The main title is already "Wiki Discussion".)

[greynol]

Yes to all of it!

Can we get a link that gets you back to the forum more easily as well?

[Porcus]

I have a few doubts concerning point 1, as I guess that most internet users (and in particular, most of those for whom the wording might make a difference) think of a 'wiki' as something that anyone can edit and sabotage, hence something with low status -- at least for articles that don't suit the particuar user, those have the status of just some random idiot's scribbling that hasn't been corrected yet (read instead this source [insert Conspirapedia link here]). Saying 'wiki-styled' hints -- probably to those users who will need that hint, and who might use the term 'wiki' to complain that they cannot edit it -- that this one doesn't work precisely like what they're used to.

No strong opinions here, just think of the point and reject it as appropriate.

[probedb]

Re point 1. it runs on MediaWiki, the link in the top bar is 'Wiki', there's also a 'Wiki Policy' so in my eyes it's a Wiki. Just because something isn't publically editable doesn't mean it's not a Wiki.

[db1989]

mjb2006, that is an excellent post, with which I agree on all points. I, too, had wondered about the differing names and the seeming vaccilation over the word wiki, but I did not then proceed to do anything constructive about it as you did!

I also concur with probedb. (Sorry, Porcus! )

posted from my Wii :/

[Jan S.]

1-3) I agree.
It is publicly editable of sorts. I give access to everybody that asks. As you can appreciate on the "recent edits" page even with recaptcha I have had no luck keeping out spammers so it is easier to deal with a whitelist.
4) fixed.