Mentioning Categories instead of Groups?

Actually this is a problem that needs to be solved regardless of tags. It’s already possible to run into namespace collisions with Sub-categories.

(Whichever category first claims the namespace will own that namespace, and even if you get to choose between multiple options in the drop-down, the resulting link will always point to the “dominating” category.)

And it’s not such an unlikely scenario. A multilingual forum for instance could have /c/english/support and /c/english/support.

@riking’s suggestion of adding colors would help a lot, but I think it’d be best if also the complete path of the sub-category was shown in the hastag, e.g. #english:support

I think this use case needs to be solved before we throw tags into the mix.

4 Likes

Hmm clashing category slug is a problem… I’ll look into a fix for it.

5 Likes

Ok fix is here :slightly_smiling:

https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/3956

4 Likes

Posting here to say thanks for the fix…

…and deal with then unremovable unread topic from whispers…

5 Likes

https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/3965

Had to fix some styling issues with headers tag. Let me know what you guys think!

5 Likes

Did we test will bar and box category styles as well? We should definitely test that.

3 Likes

I just pushed this feature for everyone to try it out

I just pushed this feature for everyone to try it out

:slightly_smiling:

5 Likes

Yeah, not sure if we need to be click tracking that internal link :blush:

3 Likes

Good point, we actually have code to ignore this.

Very nice :slightly_smiling:
With the addition of Topic mentions (and autocomplete), making interconnected wikis will be much nicer!

Thought: Discoverability
@mentions are easy to understand, because the @ appears in the styled text. If I #mention a category, it hides the #. I foresee lots of “how did you do that?” posts, or worse: people not using the feature because they don’t know how.

Try:

6 Likes

If I mention howto, the link is https://meta.discourse.org/c/10-howto whereas if I mention #howto:tips-and-tricks, the link is https://meta.discourse.org/c/howto/tips-and-tricks/45.

If I follow the former, the “10-” in the link remains, while in the latter the “/45” is cleaned out.

Any good reason for this discrepancy? I like my URLs clean :stuck_out_tongue:

4 Likes

https://meta.discourse.org/c/10-howto is a supported URL and I believe https://meta.discourse.org/c/howto/10 was never implemented because it’ll clash with the routes of child categories. Is the 10 an id or a category name? :smile:

The other link is actually a redirect which is why /45 is removed from the route.

2 Likes

Also another feature that I sneaked in unintentionally/intentionally is with regards to how read restricted categories are displayed to users. Instead of decorating the link, read restricted categories will appear as normal text for users who do not have the permission to view the category.

3 Likes

Thanks for the feedback :slight_smile: Just implemented it feature :+1:

1 Like

Nahh I object to the hash there, its odd, I vote to remove it @codinghorror ?

I actually agree with the visible hash, it is like name mentions with no @ symbol, how would you ever learn how to do it?

I know is it somewhat bikesheddy but perhaps try it with the hash on the outside, maybe adjust spacing a bit?

Something does not look right to me, not sure exactly how to fix though.

Did somebody call me?

I want to throw our the idea that we go back to the text-only rendering with the hash symbol.

We don’t show mini-avatars for user mentions after all.

2 Likes

I did not object to the plain-URL rendering form, so I don’t have strong feelings here.

Some thoughts:

  • we spend a lot of time educating people about categories and it is nice to tie the visual styles together to reinforce that.

  • #categories will naturally get mentioned a lot less than @usernames, so having a more “energetic” rendering style isn’t a big deal.

  • when we bring tags under the same namespace, that means it will have two different rendering styles, so perhaps @mcwumbly is right on this long term. Simple is good.

  • I do believe rendering the hash is important otherwise people will not learn how to type these mentions without special effort

I lean towards “let’s just use the plain URL form for now”, particularly if we want to unify the tag namespace…

4 Likes

Unless someone knows some CSS magic It would require adding a wrapper element, but I think lightening it up a bit helps some. eg. #222 to #999

1 Like