I find that the discussion of MySQL here is pretty slanted. People can, for completely valid reasons, find that it is not the "best" database for a given task, or any given task. Marginalizing other, perfectly valid database options as "not the best choice" does not help build community.

I think the truth of the matter is that it was what the developers are most familiar with, so they used it. Which, by the way, is a perfectly good reason to use it. Whether or not it is the best database ever is talk that is best left to flamewars on Slashdot.

Disclaimer: I've been spending a lot of time working on Wordpress-Pg lately, and found reading this somewhat discouraging.

--wac 19:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the MySQL and PHP info need to go elsewhere. This is a glossary, not answers to a FAQ. Suggestions for destinations? --Ringmaster 18:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved the MySQL question to the FAQ. Thanks for reporting this :) --Carthik 22:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Glossary: namespace?

I've been looking to see if there are ways to add anchors to text (so you can link directly to them) without making them section headers, and I haven't had any luck. Rather than reformatting this page into a big list of sections, what does everyone think about moving each item into its own page in a Glossary: namespace? They wouldn't need to be very large articles, but there would be room for growth and we could link to them directly, as well as provide other "See also" links on each entry. — morganiq 11:33, 17 Dec 2004 (GMT)

I think it is a bad idea, since we really do not need all those extra pages to clutter the main namespace (Adding Glossary: before a title does not create a new namespace). Using headings and linking to those like Glossarry#Linux would be much better

Carthik 00:18, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Well gosh, I wish you'd said something earlier... I'm halfway done already. :-/

There are three reasons why I felt the separate page format was better:

1. A single page with all definitions on it gets long.
2. No means exists to link directly to definitions within the page without breaking the 'semantically correct' definition-list format and going with headers.
3. A single-page format allows us to cross-reference with related terms, articles, and external links.

Having determined from those criteria that a single-page format seemed like the better option, and not seeing any opposition to my proposal to do so, I went ahead with the idea. The fact that I'm halfway finished converting the list, which has been a very long process, naturally adds to my feeling that we should continue with this format.

About the namespace issue: I realized as soon as I moved the page that it had not created a new namespace, but figured it would be easy enough to create a real one if the pages are already in the correct name format. We can convert it to the traditional slash-separated subpage format if you like, or even remove the subpage idea altogether and have the definition pages reside in the main namespace à la Wikipedia, but this would probably be done easiest in batch style with a custom script. Never mind, you said you'd rather it not clutter the main namespace. ;-)

— morganiq 01:20, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT)

I asked around at #mediawiki, and they said definition lists with linkable list items in out of the question. I even tried a hack round it (see User:Carthik) but that breaks validation. I think we can use either headings, or subpages - I rather prefer subpages, but we need to find out if there is a simple way to include all subpages of a page automatically when a page is displayed, it was possible at the old wiki.

--Carthik 07:24, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT)

In that case I'll continue with this approach — which is essentially subpages, albeit with a colon instead of a slash — and we can see about batch-renaming later if we want to use slashes. I'd like to complete these soon so we can link to them while editing.

I'd personally like to create a real namespace rather than using subpages. And I'm sure we could whip up an extension to automatically list all items in a namespace on a page if we really wanted to (à la Special:Allpages), but I have no problem making sure all of the Glossary: pages are linked to from the Glossary index manually.

— morganiq 11:09, 2 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Has any determination been made for linking directly to a word in the glossary? So links from a word that is in the glossary should be just liked to the glossary, or the first letter of the word as a target, like glossary#p or something like that?

Lorelle 01:33, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Adding Glossary Terms and Phrases

I noticed throughout the codex there are some terms that should be included in the glossary but aren't. Some are simple but others are related to MySQL and PHP, but would someone know to look under those areas for definitions of those words? To of the words and phrases I found, off the top of my head, are "ping", "array" and "multi-dimentional array". I can make a list of the terms I find. There's not many, but the ones that jump out and scream "What am I?" Should I look them up and post them in the glossary or post them here for addition to the glossary?

Lorelle 01:06, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT)

More words to add:

• XML
• XML-RPC
• Open Source Code - added March 9, 2005
• CSS terms like DIV and CLASS

Lorelle 02:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Class, DIV added. lambic 16:03, 5 Dec 2006 (UTC)

And more words to add:

• Meta - most people associate meta with meta tags but WordPress uses it differently and we need that explained.

Lorelle 23:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• ASCII
• Extended Characters/Character Entities

Lorelle 16:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ping, XML, XML-RPC, Meta, ASCII added. MichaelH (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Array, Open Source, and Character Entity added. MichaelH (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

More Words to Add:

• Subversion
• SVC

These are linked to here with no definition from the Contributing to WordPress page - need the words! Lorelle 13:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Added SVC to the glossary. Corycmma 19:05, 17 Sept 20014 (UTC)

More Words to Add:

• Syndication (as in feeds and...?)
• Feed Readers

Lorelle 13:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Another Word to Add:

• DOM (document object model)

Jalenack 19:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Add 'Page' to Contrast with 'Post'

I would like to add a glossary item 'Page' to contrast with 'Post' or suggest that it be added whichever is more helpful. Reportica 17:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page definition added MichaelH (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant folks here! Thanks! Lorelle 22:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

More Words to Add

• CGI
• Telnet
• ISAPI
• Also check Hardening WordPress for more new terminology to add

Lorelle 17:55, 14 Jul 2005 (CDT)

Added Subversion, DOM, CGI, Telnet, and ISAPI MichaelH (talk) 16:06, 7 Sep 2005 (GMT)

tutorial problem

I'm new to WP and I'm going through the glossary and found a problem with Relative URI : http://codex.wordpress.org/Glossary#relative_uri

I'm using IE7 and the dialog box examples with code in them are not displaying properly. I can see a bottom scroll bar and a very tiny bit of the box. I'm not sure how to correct it so I thought I'd post it here. Tx.

Some words exist. Case Sensitive or..?

I am new to WordPress and as I was going through the glossary I found a word that exists a page already but it is in a different case

For an example here: Glossary#Tag this has a link to Post types with a lower case T but the case is different and it stated it does not exist until I put a link in there to go to Post Types and request to merge.

Not sure if this is a typo and maybe it should be edited to Post Types with matching cases so it would do directly to the page but is there a way to check for case sensitivity?

I am sorry if this concern is not for here for I am still learning how everything works
Eismint 06:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected the Post_types page to Post_Types. -Jdgrimes 13:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)