Manual talk:Technical reference

The Help namespace's front door is currently Help:Contents. I propose the Manual namespace's front door be kept consistent with that and be Manual:Contents. Predictability and consistency is important in navigational elements. Manual:Technical reference is inconsistent with the good navigational precedent set by Help:Contents. --Rogerhc 05:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So, may I move Manual:Technical reference to Manual:Contents? (Please answer on Project:Current issues) --Rogerhc 05:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add class reference
Even if temporary, add this link (or a new equivilent): MediaWiki Documentation It is really hard to find documentation right now with it split between the two sites. -Genidiot 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That information will always be on a separate site, as it is auto-generated. It is also linked to from the side-bar.  It might be worth adding an 'external information' section, although this was originally intended as purely an on-site reference.  I wonder if anyone has an opinion on that, either way. --HappyDog 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How can we link to them, to begin with? It seems the links to each function are dynamic, and are changed on every commit to SVN. Tito xd (?!?) 07:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the link in the sidebar. That's cool.  I just wanted a link to the main directory page link that, not to each function, as that would be a pain due to constant changing.  Consider this item complete from my point of view, sorry for not noticing it was there.  --Genidiot 15:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
I copied the contents of this page to Manual:Contents so that it can be reached from every page with one click instead of two. We can make this page a redirect to it.--Patrick 09:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's sensible. Originally we envisaged that Manual:Contents would be a portal to various manual pages (user manual, sysadmin manual, technical manual, etc.) but it seems like the site hasn't evolved that way - at least not yet.  It currently makes more sense to have it all on that one page, we can always split them apart again later if the content warrants it. --HappyDog 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)