 |
 | |
 |
 |
edit
The naming conventions of openpolitics.ca itself are a derived work? of these ECG naming conventions. Problems with these are documented as naming knots.
A page in a wiki that has a good page name is easy for people to find, in one of two ways
In short, creating a page is going to be worthwhile only if people can find it. Since all wiki page names become URL's there are specific constraints which allow servers to deliver pages reliably.''
Patience is required: naming conventions are a frequent source of administrator error? as they are complex and require sometimes right versus right? to be traded off.
However, as with any ethical problem there are legitimate clashes of view - as there is link ethics there is a name ethics too - see deep framing. Accordingly:
OP:insiders cannot develop a "fully documented set of naming conventions" - ever - this is impossible in principle just as no one natural language dictionary? is ever complete in a living language?. The OP:insiders develop mostly-coherent ad hoc rulesets that seem to resolve all conflicts seen to date. That is all they can ever do. Asking for more is futile:
As naming is an ethical problem, then, it can never be fully settled by "rules", but by higher leverage shifts in mindset, and self-organized volunteer group?s. If you don't understand this, read it again. It is not easy to understand. Got it? No? OK then read it again. After each pass, write up a response.
Any "overview" of conventions is dangerous because to give the impression that one can trust one's own judgement or instinct after reading a "general overview" is just wrong in this case. Names are fragile and extremely persistent - there is only one way to get a name out of a user's brain:
In computer science? generally binding theory? is the most complex area - naming is the single most complex and unsolveable problem. This is even more true in Computer Supported Cooperative Work? where people must agree on the exact meaning not just with the computer but with each other.
The following is the simplest single page that can be assembled on the problem of naming conventions. It is not comprehensive, cannot be, and is not evidence that you can cite in some dispute?. All name precedents are.
Most of the conflicts arising in social software are, of course, social. Attempts are made to clarify limits and fair ways to deal with these on political party resolution? and political party commitment? and political party member? pages. Eventually Canadian politics as usual should be more like open politics as usual and the social contract between members of parties and their leaders, both and the public, and between participants in open politics itself, gets clearer.
In all cases of naming distinctions open politics itself will defer to:
Where OP:admin is stuck with the job of enforcement, which should not happen, the following is how it happens:
Every page name becomes a link from other pages. Accordingly a bad page name must be spotted quickly, marked as such, and no new content added to it. Once something is removed and marked bad page name, it must not re-appear - please CHECK the page you are about edit before you edit it, it will ALWAYS tell you where the information actually goes. If you mark a bad page name, you must identify the proper page name using the following rules, and provide a link to it on the old badly named page:
See name precedent and name discipline for the rationale for taking this seriously, and for removing editing priveleges from anyone who doesn't take it seriously, given the damage it does to the mission.
To discuss politics and law one must not abuse words that have specific meaning in politics and law. This is more true in page names than in text. Words like for instance "threat?" are not valid to include in names - use "alleged threat?" or "suspect?", but be careful not to use "suspect" to describe the person who actually DID the crime, e.g.
It is the perpetrator? who hopped over the fence. The suspect? is the person brought in and charged with the crime, who may or may not be the same person. To call the person who did the crime the suspect is to call the suspect the perpetrator. Likewise there is no such thing as a "convicted pedophile" and whether there is hate speech depends where you are, and whether someone was convicted of it, and whether the appeal stood or not. Do not use legal words at all if you cannot use them properly.
open politics itself borrows heavily fromWikipedia: naming conventions
which are GFDL corpus precedent?s. They tend to be followed in any open content corpus?. See GFDL corpus namespace for an explanation of why these conventions must be followed slavishly.
Wherever possible use the same name for something as
Wikinfo .org, DoWire?.org,
Wikipedia .org or Wikitravel.org or SourceWatch.org in that order. See name precedent and GFDL corpus namespace for more on how and why. ''For some trollish matters Consumerium
.org is useful also as a name precedent, as they developed the faction model and maintain a good list of factionally defined?* terms.''
The words "menu?", "module?" or "frame" likewise should be reserved only for aspects of the tikiwiki-based service that is presently the only graphic user interface? of open politics itself. When there is a candidate portal that worn devices can access it is very likely that this list of such "objects" will expand.
Avoid inventing slight variations of names already defined by a web browser? or tikiwiki, e.g. "home page" is something set by the user in the browser and cannot be set by LivingPlatform.CA itself unless we want to be malware? - which we don't. Abuse of this term is grounds to complain to LP:admin.
However tikiwiki sets the name wrong in the defaults of most tikiwiki-based services, you have to complain to the tikiwiki developers about this tikiwiki flaw not screw up name space as a protest.
As "home page" is set in the browser, the tikiwiki constant HomePage violates every convention of sanity - it is even a dreaded WikiWord?. Tikiwiki is telling you there is a HomePage - if you use tikiwiki you must believe it. We don't.
Because of the sheer weight of the GFDL corpus and its subset the GFDL corpus namespace if there is arbitrary choice to make then make it the way Mediawiki has done:
You must conserve capitals as much as possible - treat every capital letter as costing something, that is, think of it as a capital asset!
USE LOWERCASE NAMES and only permit capitals for proper names of agencies and specific proposals ALREADY on the list of platform proposals. Some exceptions are those terms defined in tikiwiki like HomePage, but, they are rare. Other tikiwiki flaws including being case insensitive? which encourages very very bad habits, which will cause immense and probably unsolvable problems if (open politics itself)) shifts to mediawiki etc.
It is especially important to avoid capitals in command verbs or policy terms - see list of policy terms and you will see basically no capitals.
Convention: Do not capitalize words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized. e.g. use John Wayne but not "Computer game". (Note that the letters of a link need not be capitalized, since links are case-insensitive, thus: computer game - NEVER USE CAPITALS IN ANY LINK WHATSOEVER unless you are dealing strictly and only with proper names.
Convention: All acronyms should be capitalized.
The following make it easier to describe and mention action
Convention: In general create page titles that are in the singular, or a singular noun phrase unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). Note that some terms like ethic and ethics mean something different in singular vs. plural.
Convention: If describing an action, especially one possible to take via the user interface itself, prefer the verb form to describe it, e.g. edit comment, edit page, preview page?, draft plank, vote, etc. The pure verb form is always appropriate to present a simple action that a person can take,
In cases where it's desperately important to use the verb first, i.e. those verbs that are heavily used and must be carefully distinguished, an adverb? may be required to preserve this, i.e. rather than link "federal vote" which is a noun, link vote federally? to preserve the present tense form and not mistake the collective Canadian federal popular vote? for the action an individual takes as they vote federally?.
Avoid the "ing" form unless one is describing the process
In an article title this may be an historical? neutral point of view article - about a past process. Any use of the "-ing" term in the present tense? must link to a more active tense? or forward looking? article, making clear that the article as it remains? is backward looking?. Examples would be articles that explain a whole phenomenon use "ing", e.g. trolling or reforming? or organizing? or anarchizing? when these are discussed as a process, typically a social process or social pattern, without explaining "how to do these things". When explaining HOW, one would instead use more specific terms like reform Toronto City Council, troll Wikipedia?.
Another exception is where a word is one of all control verbs already and so already used in active tense? to instruct user?s. Such exceptions are rare and made by OP:designer?s deferring to ECG Master fiat. The only known examples of this exception actually being used are "watching?", "editing", "discussing?", "commenting", "emailing?", "chatting?", "betting?", "voting?", "requesting?", "offering?", "reporting?", "predicting?", "deciding?", "ratifying?", "proposing?", "sourcing?" and "committing?". These are gerund forms of terms used in all LP controls or that are reserved for such usage as they describe things that by 2012 OP will? be doing.
The gerund of verbs (the -ing form in English) should be avoided for all other purposes. Be careful about nouns and verbs with the same name, e.g. archive page vs. archiving? vs. archived page.
Prepositions are exceptionally difficult to use properly especially if one speaks English as an additional language?.
Especially problematic are "in" or "on", as in on page? or in GPO? or "on street" (American, Canadian) vs. "in street" (English). Avoid these if you can, for instance:
Thanks to email, everywhere on the net we use re? for topics. So it's better to say "comments re Inuit Circumpolar Conference" than it is to say "comments on..." or "comments made in..." or "comments about..."
Another mess, "as" implies that something "is not, but is perceived to be sometimes". Avoid "as" in any official statement that is not about the user interface, but use it freely for that, e.g. as activist or as student? is fine, "as baby-killer?" or as assassin?" should be avoided. See Hollywood role and Internet as role playing game org patterns and especially using open politics logged in as? for the way "as" works.
Ideally it is used only to distinguish multiple roles:
E.g. for GPO? - see using open poltiics logged in as?
E.g. Mayor of Toronto, President of the United States
Examples are to summarize or signal attribution, as in:
Or to make specific commitments that are necessarily from a person or group making a choice or commitment, which should ideally be named in the link, e.g.:
The shorter by 2006 is barely acceptable, better than the year alone, and is appropriate only when it is not clear if an event is anticipated, predicted, created, or committed....
If the commitment is taken on officially by some group in some binding way, not just stated for comment like other pages, it should be repeated in that LP client namespace?, e.g.
Major predictions like ice age before 2050? or "before 2009?, the Liberal Party of Canada will not exist" and for which no one group makes any specific commitment should not use "by" because there is no one accountable if it does not happen. A good rule of thumb is that if no one could be held responsible, it's a "before" not a "by" - see limited liability?. Yes this is subject to politics as usual - it's at least as bad as full cost accounting or basic income which are also subjective.
This is usually seen only when a page describes preparing for an action, e.g. GPO:resolution to...? or open letter to Ralph Goodale from Civic Efficiency Group. In these cases there is usually a "from" to match the to. If there is not, be very careful, you may be using it wrong.
Pages like to browse, edit, to vote?, refer to functions specific to Living Platform itself, and describe how to? do these things in this context only: all control verbs that require complex instructions must be titled this way. "todo" is also one of these.
The past tense, e.g. archived, deleted, blocked? trolled?, is also used mostly in special page?s that track actions defined in administrator guidelines - this too is part of how open politics itself works.
A few such terms are used to refer to all LP controls, e.g. "edited?", "commented?", and will appear in user contribution? lists or when OP:insiders report time. See reporting? for more on this.
As all control verbs solidify, more past tense terms will likely be standardized, e.g. elected?, voted?.
As all human command verbs expand, there will also be more use of past tense in titles to describe legal actions, e.g. list of persons arrested?, all Greens arrested?, etc.
When naming pages, try to use the shortest, simplest and least confusing title THAT GETS THE SCOPE RIGHT, e.g. you cannot cut Richmond Hill Ward 5 or Toronto Ward 5? to just "Ward 5". There are HUNDREDS IF NOT maybe THOUSANDS of Ward 5s in Canada. openpolitics.CA itself has a .ca? domain name?, so, names must be unambiguous within Canada. If there's more than one Richmond Hill then you need the province, e.g. Richmond Hill ON Ward 5?. Use Canada Post? conventions if there is no other choice.
Pages specific to a jurisdiction or party must put that as a prefix, e.g. GPC Council, Toronto operations.
There is ONE date format at Living Platform itself, and it's YYYY-MM-DD - so meetings are named as follows:
No other names are accepted or acceptable. Avoid "committee" or "team" in the meeting if it is regularly opened to outsiders. An LP steering meeting for instance is open to those interested, so it is not just the LP steering committee that is allowed to participate. Accordingly "committee" in that name is just redundant and discouraging.
Put floating agenda items at Group Name meeting agenda?
The group name may need a prefix if it is ambiguous, e.g.
A list of political party naming conventions? will deal with such questions as GPO:2005 resolution. For now it's ad hoc?.
Some phrases are special.
See LP:directives which use mostly LP:verbs
Convention: there are three
Use the form "all..." when it is central to your purpose to keep that list constantly up to date, that is, it is one of your top support priorities? or it is done automatically. Examples: all control verbs, all human command verbs.
Use the form "list of..." when it is important but not absolutely central to keep the list up to date. Examples: list of policy terms, list of process terms.
Convention: "paper on...", "writing by...", "research on...", "comments by...", "...paper", "...comments", "...notes", "...opinions", etc., are all unnecessary. OF COURSE it is writing, and of course it is comments, and research. THIS IS THE WEB!!! These words add nothing but noise. Cut them out.
Convention: "draft...", "proposed...", "...proposal" "...agenda" etc., are avoided because the status of the page will change:
You have NO TIME TO FIND ALL LINKS to such pages and fix them. The page history is fine for finding past version?s. So give something a timeless name that will work for all time. For instance Element Village agenda? is ok since it will ALWAYS contain ONLY leftover agenda items from the last EV meeting waiting to be scheduled for the next EV meeting or some subsequent meeting.
Convention: Adjectives (such as democratic) should redirect to nouns (in this case, democracy) UNLESS they have some central meaning as adjectives (like "reflexive") and are not controversial. Competing noun and adjective definitions are a serious problem that must be avoided - if there are two definitions, then they MUST "fight it out".
Multiple reasonable names for the same concept or sub-concept require redirects. For example, "highway funding" and "road funding" should be created with redirects to "infrastructure funding". The only content of the "highway funding" and "road funding" would be: #REDIRECT infrastructure funding?
By using the shortest word or phrase, it should be possible to avoid all punctuation
UNLESS it is used at Wikipedia, in which case do as they do.
The list of all name precedents should include all the possible legitimate uses of punctuation in LP main namespace?.
A page in a wiki that has a good page name is easy for people to find, in one of two ways
- just by guessing the title of the page they want.
- searching the database using the list of policy terms, list of process terms, or a prefix listed as a namespace.
In short, creating a page is going to be worthwhile only if people can find it. Since all wiki page names become URL's there are specific constraints which allow servers to deliver pages reliably.''
- naming conventions for dummies.
- all frequently used conventions
- Naming conventions for senior editors.
- they are never "done"
- the only way to bad names out of a user's brain
- enforcing naming conventions
- marking bad page names
- naming principles and precedents
- obey precedents set by authorities
- obey English language rules
- be active
- prefer singular nouns, disambiguate plural forms
- prepositions
- past tense
- guidelines that depend on OP client purpose and needs
- phrases
- many names for one thing
naming conventions for dummies.
- naming conventions matter If pages are poorly named, people will not be able to find them, and then start parallel pages on the same topic. Since the point of using a wiki is generally to build consensus, having the multiple pages on the same topic prevents wiki critical mass? from forming. A well managed wiki maintains a rigorous name discipline.
- try wikipedia first wikipedia has about half a million good page names going already. pick one of those copy it exactlyand you are pretty safe. By 2007? we will likely be integrated with wikipedia anyway.
- once it's exact, make it simple in almost all circumstances, the shortest possible page name that still describes the content and the scope is the best name.
- Avoid punctuation. especially apostrophes.
- Ruthlessly remove prefixes and suffixes from words.
- Avoid adjectives and adverbs. The title will be a URI/web address? published to others, and every extra character in it, or any error of page scope? is a discouraging error.
- when in doubt, editors can help and will (without asking, wikis operate on forgiveness not permission? ) and will rename page?s. If they leave a marker saying your name was a bad page name you must understand the argument they make, and learn the convention. Complaining about this process will only make you unwelcome to return - everyone who learns how to wiki well accepts such fiat since they have equal power? to respond
- check the lists and all name precedents. Before you create a new issue page, consult the list of all issues, and the same goes for process pages, with thelist of process terms or the list of policy terms, etc. Wiki's intentionally try to maintain a limited vocabulary.
- depending on the context, there are many other precedents: all human command verbs must be used exactly, as with any legal term? - also all control verbs
- be EXACT about names - no variant spelling - an American spelling for a policy or agency might be different than the international English spelling? - use the one that actually applies, e.g. a US "center" vs. UK or Canadian "centre"
- conserve capitals use capitals only for proper nouns.
- avoid punctuation computers hate punctuation in file and page names - ALL exceptions to this will be visible in all name precedents so be sure to consult that page.
- groups abbreviate their own names, and where possible the group's own abbreviation provides a prefix for that group, e.g. GPC for Green Party of Canada
- dates and times require very specific conventions for which there is absolutely no room for error or flexibility
- the words by and will are central
- any commitment by a user should be marked with a _user_signed tag;
- any commitment by a group should ideally be signed too but it is more important to link "by DATE GROUP will?..."
all frequently used conventions
For easy reference, all frequently used naming conventions for specific types of pages should be recorded here- issue position argument IPA pages
- positions and more fully justified position papers
- news articles
- reports, essays or opinion? e.g. op-ed?
- initiatives especially those led by a government.
- campaigns led by political parties or NGO's.
- government commissions or inquiries
- committees, factions, group?s
- meetings or one time events (page names with dates)
- pages that define, i.e. dictionary? or encyclopedia style
- other article?s in journalist? or academic? style
- biography page?s (pages written about others)
- user pages (pages written about ourselves)
- help page?s
- browse? pages, i.e. article hub?s,
- discuss?ion or talk pages
- predictions
- temporary pages
Naming conventions for senior editors.
they are never "done"
Patience is required: naming conventions are a frequent source of administrator error? as they are complex and require sometimes right versus right? to be traded off.
However, as with any ethical problem there are legitimate clashes of view - as there is link ethics there is a name ethics too - see deep framing. Accordingly:
OP:insiders cannot develop a "fully documented set of naming conventions" - ever - this is impossible in principle just as no one natural language dictionary? is ever complete in a living language?. The OP:insiders develop mostly-coherent ad hoc rulesets that seem to resolve all conflicts seen to date. That is all they can ever do. Asking for more is futile:
As naming is an ethical problem, then, it can never be fully settled by "rules", but by higher leverage shifts in mindset, and self-organized volunteer group?s. If you don't understand this, read it again. It is not easy to understand. Got it? No? OK then read it again. After each pass, write up a response.
the only way to bad names out of a user's brain
Any "overview" of conventions is dangerous because to give the impression that one can trust one's own judgement or instinct after reading a "general overview" is just wrong in this case. Names are fragile and extremely persistent - there is only one way to get a name out of a user's brain:
- with a bullet.
In computer science? generally binding theory? is the most complex area - naming is the single most complex and unsolveable problem. This is even more true in Computer Supported Cooperative Work? where people must agree on the exact meaning not just with the computer but with each other.
The following is the simplest single page that can be assembled on the problem of naming conventions. It is not comprehensive, cannot be, and is not evidence that you can cite in some dispute?. All name precedents are.
Most of the conflicts arising in social software are, of course, social. Attempts are made to clarify limits and fair ways to deal with these on political party resolution? and political party commitment? and political party member? pages. Eventually Canadian politics as usual should be more like open politics as usual and the social contract between members of parties and their leaders, both and the public, and between participants in open politics itself, gets clearer.
defer on names
In all cases of naming distinctions open politics itself will defer to:
- the law of the relevant jurisdiction
- other troll-friendly administrator guidelines
- other editor guidelines especially re point of view
enforcing naming conventions
Where OP:admin is stuck with the job of enforcement, which should not happen, the following is how it happens:
marking bad page names
Every page name becomes a link from other pages. Accordingly a bad page name must be spotted quickly, marked as such, and no new content added to it. Once something is removed and marked bad page name, it must not re-appear - please CHECK the page you are about edit before you edit it, it will ALWAYS tell you where the information actually goes. If you mark a bad page name, you must identify the proper page name using the following rules, and provide a link to it on the old badly named page:
naming principles and precedents
See name precedent and name discipline for the rationale for taking this seriously, and for removing editing priveleges from anyone who doesn't take it seriously, given the damage it does to the mission.
obey precedents set by authorities
legal code?s
To discuss politics and law one must not abuse words that have specific meaning in politics and law. This is more true in page names than in text. Words like for instance "threat?" are not valid to include in names - use "alleged threat?" or "suspect?", but be careful not to use "suspect" to describe the person who actually DID the crime, e.g.
- "We saw him kill the guy and run. It was dark but we could see the suspect hop over a fence, then we lost him."
It is the perpetrator? who hopped over the fence. The suspect? is the person brought in and charged with the crime, who may or may not be the same person. To call the person who did the crime the suspect is to call the suspect the perpetrator. Likewise there is no such thing as a "convicted pedophile" and whether there is hate speech depends where you are, and whether someone was convicted of it, and whether the appeal stood or not. Do not use legal words at all if you cannot use them properly.
open content conventions
open politics itself borrows heavily fromWikipedia: naming conventions
which are GFDL corpus precedent?s. They tend to be followed in any open content corpus?. See GFDL corpus namespace for an explanation of why these conventions must be followed slavishly.copy Wikinfo, DoWire, Wikipedia, Wikitravel, SourceWatch, Consumerium
Wherever possible use the same name for something as
Wikinfo .org
, DoWire?.org,Wikipedia .org
or Wikitravel.org or SourceWatch.org in that order. See name precedent and GFDL corpus namespace for more on how and why. ''For some trollish matters Consumerium.org
is useful also as a name precedent, as they developed the faction model and maintain a good list of factionally defined?* terms.''objects that exist in the GUI - only referring to those
hold your nose to reflect tikiwiki software? terms
The words "menu?", "module?" or "frame" likewise should be reserved only for aspects of the tikiwiki-based service that is presently the only graphic user interface? of open politics itself. When there is a candidate portal that worn devices can access it is very likely that this list of such "objects" will expand.
Avoid inventing slight variations of names already defined by a web browser? or tikiwiki, e.g. "home page" is something set by the user in the browser and cannot be set by LivingPlatform.CA itself unless we want to be malware? - which we don't. Abuse of this term is grounds to complain to LP:admin.
complain to tikiwiki developers about really bad names
However tikiwiki sets the name wrong in the defaults of most tikiwiki-based services, you have to complain to the tikiwiki developers about this tikiwiki flaw not screw up name space as a protest.
As "home page" is set in the browser, the tikiwiki constant HomePage violates every convention of sanity - it is even a dreaded WikiWord?. Tikiwiki is telling you there is a HomePage - if you use tikiwiki you must believe it. We don't.
prefer mediawiki conventions
Because of the sheer weight of the GFDL corpus and its subset the GFDL corpus namespace if there is arbitrary choice to make then make it the way Mediawiki has done:
- User:Michael_Pilling for user's own self-description
- User:Michael_Pilling/done for user subpage in arbitrary format
- Main_Page so that http://openpolitics.ca/Main_Page will mirror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page or etc.
obey English language rules
avoid uppercase
You must conserve capitals as much as possible - treat every capital letter as costing something, that is, think of it as a capital asset!
USE LOWERCASE NAMES and only permit capitals for proper names of agencies and specific proposals ALREADY on the list of platform proposals. Some exceptions are those terms defined in tikiwiki like HomePage, but, they are rare. Other tikiwiki flaws including being case insensitive? which encourages very very bad habits, which will cause immense and probably unsolvable problems if (open politics itself)) shifts to mediawiki etc.
It is especially important to avoid capitals in command verbs or policy terms - see list of policy terms and you will see basically no capitals.
capitalize only proper nouns and acronyms
Convention: Do not capitalize words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized. e.g. use John Wayne but not "Computer game". (Note that the letters of a link need not be capitalized, since links are case-insensitive, thus: computer game - NEVER USE CAPITALS IN ANY LINK WHATSOEVER unless you are dealing strictly and only with proper names.
Convention: All acronyms should be capitalized.
be active
The following make it easier to describe and mention action
prefer singular nouns, disambiguate plural forms
Convention: In general create page titles that are in the singular, or a singular noun phrase unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). Note that some terms like ethic and ethics mean something different in singular vs. plural.
prefer verb form
Convention: If describing an action, especially one possible to take via the user interface itself, prefer the verb form to describe it, e.g. edit comment, edit page, preview page?, draft plank, vote, etc. The pure verb form is always appropriate to present a simple action that a person can take,
use adverbs to distinguish critical verbs
In cases where it's desperately important to use the verb first, i.e. those verbs that are heavily used and must be carefully distinguished, an adverb? may be required to preserve this, i.e. rather than link "federal vote" which is a noun, link vote federally? to preserve the present tense form and not mistake the collective Canadian federal popular vote? for the action an individual takes as they vote federally?.
use "-ing" gerund to describe a process - only
Avoid the "ing" form unless one is describing the process
In an article title this may be an historical? neutral point of view article - about a past process. Any use of the "-ing" term in the present tense? must link to a more active tense? or forward looking? article, making clear that the article as it remains? is backward looking?. Examples would be articles that explain a whole phenomenon use "ing", e.g. trolling or reforming? or organizing? or anarchizing? when these are discussed as a process, typically a social process or social pattern, without explaining "how to do these things". When explaining HOW, one would instead use more specific terms like reform Toronto City Council, troll Wikipedia?.
Another exception is where a word is one of all control verbs already and so already used in active tense? to instruct user?s. Such exceptions are rare and made by OP:designer?s deferring to ECG Master fiat. The only known examples of this exception actually being used are "watching?", "editing", "discussing?", "commenting", "emailing?", "chatting?", "betting?", "voting?", "requesting?", "offering?", "reporting?", "predicting?", "deciding?", "ratifying?", "proposing?", "sourcing?" and "committing?". These are gerund forms of terms used in all LP controls or that are reserved for such usage as they describe things that by 2012 OP will? be doing.
The gerund of verbs (the -ing form in English) should be avoided for all other purposes. Be careful about nouns and verbs with the same name, e.g. archive page vs. archiving? vs. archived page.
prepositions
Prepositions are exceptionally difficult to use properly especially if one speaks English as an additional language?.
"in" and "on" - messy
Especially problematic are "in" or "on", as in on page? or in GPO? or "on street" (American, Canadian) vs. "in street" (English). Avoid these if you can, for instance:
re: topics
Thanks to email, everywhere on the net we use re? for topics. So it's better to say "comments re Inuit Circumpolar Conference" than it is to say "comments on..." or "comments made in..." or "comments about..."
"as" vs. "is"
Another mess, "as" implies that something "is not, but is perceived to be sometimes". Avoid "as" in any official statement that is not about the user interface, but use it freely for that, e.g. as activist or as student? is fine, "as baby-killer?" or as assassin?" should be avoided. See Hollywood role and Internet as role playing game org patterns and especially using open politics logged in as? for the way "as" works.
Ideally it is used only to distinguish multiple roles:
- as activist vs. as voter
- as candidate vs. as representative
- as educator vs. as student?
- watching as?
use "for" for goals and groups you do things "for"
E.g. for GPO? - see using open poltiics logged in as?
use "of" for context
E.g. Mayor of Toronto, President of the United States
use "by" to signal commitment and attribution - only
Examples are to summarize or signal attribution, as in:
Or to make specific commitments that are necessarily from a person or group making a choice or commitment, which should ideally be named in the link, e.g.:
The shorter by 2006 is barely acceptable, better than the year alone, and is appropriate only when it is not clear if an event is anticipated, predicted, created, or committed....
If the commitment is taken on officially by some group in some binding way, not just stated for comment like other pages, it should be repeated in that LP client namespace?, e.g.
use "before" for anticipation and prediction - only
Major predictions like ice age before 2050? or "before 2009?, the Liberal Party of Canada will not exist" and for which no one group makes any specific commitment should not use "by" because there is no one accountable if it does not happen. A good rule of thumb is that if no one could be held responsible, it's a "before" not a "by" - see limited liability?. Yes this is subject to politics as usual - it's at least as bad as full cost accounting or basic income which are also subjective.
use "to" for an action that has a "from"
This is usually seen only when a page describes preparing for an action, e.g. GPO:resolution to...? or open letter to Ralph Goodale from Civic Efficiency Group. In these cases there is usually a "from" to match the to. If there is not, be very careful, you may be using it wrong.
use of "to" before verbs
Pages like to browse, edit, to vote?, refer to functions specific to Living Platform itself, and describe how to? do these things in this context only: all control verbs that require complex instructions must be titled this way. "todo" is also one of these.
past tense
The past tense, e.g. archived, deleted, blocked? trolled?, is also used mostly in special page?s that track actions defined in administrator guidelines - this too is part of how open politics itself works.
A few such terms are used to refer to all LP controls, e.g. "edited?", "commented?", and will appear in user contribution? lists or when OP:insiders report time. See reporting? for more on this.
As all control verbs solidify, more past tense terms will likely be standardized, e.g. elected?, voted?.
As all human command verbs expand, there will also be more use of past tense in titles to describe legal actions, e.g. list of persons arrested?, all Greens arrested?, etc.
guidelines that depend on OP client purpose and needs
scope it right
When naming pages, try to use the shortest, simplest and least confusing title THAT GETS THE SCOPE RIGHT, e.g. you cannot cut Richmond Hill Ward 5 or Toronto Ward 5? to just "Ward 5". There are HUNDREDS IF NOT maybe THOUSANDS of Ward 5s in Canada. openpolitics.CA itself has a .ca? domain name?, so, names must be unambiguous within Canada. If there's more than one Richmond Hill then you need the province, e.g. Richmond Hill ON Ward 5?. Use Canada Post? conventions if there is no other choice.
jurisdictions or parties first
Pages specific to a jurisdiction or party must put that as a prefix, e.g. GPC Council, Toronto operations.
Include dates for dated information
any information that is specific to a dated entity like a platform, e.g. Platform 2004 should have a suffix with the same year/date as that, e.g. Answering Citizen Questions 2004 which is the official policy on how to answer the questions regarding the 2004 platformThere is ONE date format at Living Platform itself, and it's YYYY-MM-DD - so meetings are named as follows:
- Group SubgroupOrPurpose meeting YYYY-MM-DD?
No other names are accepted or acceptable. Avoid "committee" or "team" in the meeting if it is regularly opened to outsiders. An LP steering meeting for instance is open to those interested, so it is not just the LP steering committee that is allowed to participate. Accordingly "committee" in that name is just redundant and discouraging.
meetings
Put floating agenda items at Group Name meeting agenda?
group names
The group name may need a prefix if it is ambiguous, e.g.
group actions
A list of political party naming conventions? will deal with such questions as GPO:2005 resolution. For now it's ad hoc?.
phrases
Some phrases are special.
directives
See LP:directives which use mostly LP:verbs
lists
Convention: there are three
Use the form "all..." when it is central to your purpose to keep that list constantly up to date, that is, it is one of your top support priorities? or it is done automatically. Examples: all control verbs, all human command verbs.
Use the form "list of..." when it is important but not absolutely central to keep the list up to date. Examples: list of policy terms, list of process terms.
avoid redundant words
Convention: "paper on...", "writing by...", "research on...", "comments by...", "...paper", "...comments", "...notes", "...opinions", etc., are all unnecessary. OF COURSE it is writing, and of course it is comments, and research. THIS IS THE WEB!!! These words add nothing but noise. Cut them out.
avoid status words
Convention: "draft...", "proposed...", "...proposal" "...agenda" etc., are avoided because the status of the page will change:
- A wiki meeting becomes meeting minutes in some later revision
- A draft is ratified or approved
You have NO TIME TO FIND ALL LINKS to such pages and fix them. The page history is fine for finding past version?s. So give something a timeless name that will work for all time. For instance Element Village agenda? is ok since it will ALWAYS contain ONLY leftover agenda items from the last EV meeting waiting to be scheduled for the next EV meeting or some subsequent meeting.
many names for one thing
Redirect adjectives to nouns, and multiple reasonable names for the same concept
Convention: Adjectives (such as democratic) should redirect to nouns (in this case, democracy) UNLESS they have some central meaning as adjectives (like "reflexive") and are not controversial. Competing noun and adjective definitions are a serious problem that must be avoided - if there are two definitions, then they MUST "fight it out".
Multiple reasonable names for the same concept or sub-concept require redirects. For example, "highway funding" and "road funding" should be created with redirects to "infrastructure funding". The only content of the "highway funding" and "road funding" would be: #REDIRECT infrastructure funding?
Use common names of persons and things
Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The most common source of these is the GFDL corpus namespace.Be precise when necessary
Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously-named title as though that title had no other meanings.Use spelled-out phrases rather than acronyms
Convention: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (NASA and radar are good examples).Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles
Since Transportation in Azerbaijan could just as well be considered a subdivision of Transportation as of Azerbaijan, do not use a name like Azerbaijan/TransportationAvoid special characters
Some special characters either cannot be used or can but cause problems. For example you should not use a piping character (|), an asterisk (*), an ampersand (&), a plus sign (+), curly braces ({}), or square braces ([]) in a name.Avoid Punctuation
By using the shortest word or phrase, it should be possible to avoid all punctuation
UNLESS it is used at Wikipedia, in which case do as they do.
The list of all name precedents should include all the possible legitimate uses of punctuation in LP main namespace?.
This page controls Living Platform itself to fitliving ontology. It is CC-by-nc-sa by Efficient Civics Guild. The LivingPlatform.CA terms of use defer to ECG living ontology terms of use for all LP controls and ECG Master work.
 |
 | |
|
Login |
||
 |
 |
|
| |
|
Find Page |
||
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| | |
OpenPolitics.ca is a project of the Open Politics Foundation. The purpose of this site, as defined by the Terms of Use is to provide an open forum for collaboration and deliberation on political issues. All contents reflect the views of registered and anonymous contributors, and not the Open Politics Foundation which cannot be responsible for postings. The public is free to edit almost every page in this site. Any questions or concerns? Please contact: info@openpolitics.ca | ||
| |
 |  | |
| If you like openpolitics.ca, support the foundation. Become an Open Politics Insider. We power your empowerment. | ||
 |  |