[y] WikiMultipleVote: is this point valid? *
I've noticed a habit on many pages to repeat the title of the page, often for emphasis when writing. So you'll see, for example, something like "L
inksToCurrentPageViolateYagni" on a page of the same title (only linked).
There are a few reasons not to do this.
- The resulting text is underlined and in a different colour (typically purple) with common user agents, distracting the reader while providing a useless link (the reader is already on the page being referenced).
- The text is made into an artificial example of WordsSmashedTogetherLikeSo, further degrading readability. This runs counter to the writer's intent of emphasizing the text.
But there are also a few reasons to do this.
- You get a link to the page which will still work if some WikiGnome decides to copy-and-paste your quote to another page as part of a refactoring effort.
- The chosen WikiWord will be memorized better by being repeated. This is a GoodThing, because the title is necessarily somewhat arbitrary and repeating it will counter that. To repeat: Repetition helps memorizing. Memorizing by repetition is good, if it is not overdone.
. It will take the same effort to change the plain text into a link later on as it does now.
Let me be very clear while practicing what I preach, as an example: Links to the current page violate YAGNI.
Does that hold as well for restatements ( for which you give an example ----^ )
(This is "LinksToCurrentPageViolateYagni", not "RestatementsViolateYagni".
I meant "LinksToCurrentPageViolateYagni
" as a link since it is underlined and coloured, and "Links To Current Page Violate Yagni" as a statement (not a link). It is a statement of the page title, not a link.
Do statements of the title of the page or the prevention of the presentation of a link as in using SixSingleQuotes
, fall in the same category, or is it just the link that violates?
The intent was that making the link is the violation. The irony is partly made up of the fact that preventing the link is extra work. Maybe my concept of "irony" is a bit strained.
Hmm... who really cares?
(*) Please don't actually vote! It's part of the irony, you see.
Irony to you seems to mean - to suggest things not intended to be done.
Only in the context of a discussion of YagNi.
Does that hold as well for your "Please don't actually vote"? Seriously!
Er... no... I think. But if it's more amusing to conduct the vote, then so be it. :)
[y] Should I actually not vote above?
That's not what I meant either, but it's hilarious! I'm impressed.
[y] I shouldn't vote anywhere on this page! *
Irony's like rain on your wedding day.
Rain on your wedding day is only ironic if you're marrying a meteorologist, and they chose the date.
What I find as ironic is that all I have to do is bag up the clippings from the lawn to await the weekly pick up (in biodegradable paper bags which do not hold up well when wet) and within a day or two it will rain. It's kind of like taking the SUV to a Carwash on Saturday, only to have it rain on Sunday. These are both violations of Yagni.
Actually, I think that typing LinksToCurrentPageDoesntViolateYagni?
, as it is an example of DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork
. After all, breaking apart the words either requires using SixSingleQuotes
; or typing a bunch of superfluous space characters, in either case, YouArentGonnaNeedIt
One could argue that capital letters are just as much effort; ComplexityHasToGoSomewhere. Then again, perhaps you are just trying to steer the conversation in the direction of SyntacticallySignificantWhitespace? :)