Page naming question - follow up to RFC

[David Nalley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Currently the page
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_Structure#Page_naming has two
different naming conventions, one for end-user docs, and one for
non-end-user docs.
The above says that single level nesting is ok for non-end-user
sub-projects. ie, we could have
/Ambassadors/Requirements_for_NA_Ambassadors (old style would have
been /Ambassadors/NA/Requirements). And that end user docs is more
akin to the RFC suggested style. The RFC iirc, says that page naming
should be more akin to "A__Docs_Project_page_named_something_better"
and abandon the /DocsProject/Pages/Better/Named/Because/Nested/A
model.

I saw a couple of messages as follow up (that focused on a specific
page) but no real discussion of the merit of the RFC or lack thereof
of page naming in general. Anyone care to wade into this discussion or
will the RFC be implemented by fiat?
I am purposefully trying to stir the pot a bit, as I recently asked
for clarification and was told that there currently isn't a standard
set - and that low list activity == poor decision making? :)


Thoughts, Flames, Comments?


David Nalley





> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkibL0kACgkQkZOYj+cNI1epWwCffYn7HLtlAn/RMCfDMPmA6v7N
> yVYAn3sdlCBeihfJK/4t6Vfej673IxEj
> =0K7Z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Clint Savage]

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:22 AM, David Nalley
<david.nalley(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Currently the page
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_Structure#Page_naming has two
>  different naming conventions, one for end-user docs, and one for
>  non-end-user docs.
>  The above says that single level nesting is ok for non-end-user
>  sub-projects. ie, we could have
>  /Ambassadors/Requirements_for_NA_Ambassadors (old style would have
>  been /Ambassadors/NA/Requirements). And that end user docs is more
>  akin to the RFC suggested style. The RFC iirc, says that page naming
>  should be more akin to "A__Docs_Project_page_named_something_better"
>  and abandon the /DocsProject/Pages/Better/Named/Because/Nested/A
>  model. 
As I understand it that is the model being discussed right now by the
Docs project.  I chatted with Ian Weller about this, but they've not
yet confirmed they are going this way quite yet.

Cheers,

Clint

[Ian Weller]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:22:47PM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
>  Currently the page
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_Structure#Page_naming has two
>  different naming conventions, one for end-user docs, and one for
>  non-end-user docs.
>  The above says that single level nesting is ok for non-end-user
>  sub-projects. ie, we could have
>  /Ambassadors/Requirements_for_NA_Ambassadors (old style would have
>  been /Ambassadors/NA/Requirements). And that end user docs is more
>  akin to the RFC suggested style. The RFC iirc, says that page naming
>  should be more akin to "A__Docs_Project_page_named_something_better"
>  and abandon the /DocsProject/Pages/Better/Named/Because/Nested/A
>  model.
>  
>  I saw a couple of messages as follow up (that focused on a specific
>  page) but no real discussion of the merit of the RFC or lack thereof
>  of page naming in general. Anyone care to wade into this discussion or
>  will the RFC be implemented by fiat?
>  I am purposefully trying to stir the pot a bit, as I recently asked
>  for clarification and was told that there currently isn't a standard
>  set - and that low list activity == poor decision making? :)
>   
I believe the page needs updated, because I think we agreed on a hard
"no subpages" rule. I don't remember that well though, I'll have to go
check logs.

-- 
Ian Weller <ianweller(a)gmail.com&gt;                  http://ianweller.org
GnuPG fingerprint:  E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226  B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36
"Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet."
  ~ Douglas Adams