Choosing Wiki Names Discussion

Does anyone have any idea what to call the quality of natural flow which a good WikiName possesses? I refer to the quality of fitting into natural writing with little or no modification to that writing so that links look like AccidentalLinking instead of seeming contrived.

For example, AccidentalLinking has that quality when you read text. When you write it, it's a different matter since I can never remember that name. I always end up finding HappyCollision first.

Hmmm. AccidentalLinking describes a property of wiki while HappyCollision describes an event that gives evidence for a property. Maybe a good wiki name names the thing.

Ah, another NamelessConcept. I'm hunting them, you see, in my quest for the thing that happens when you try to find a WikiName. If you don't GuessTheRightName you end up making WronglyNamedPage - except ThereAreNoWrongNames, just DifferentNames.

Cool Wiki Names are pages that someone has read the title of and thought "Sounds interesting. I wonder what that's about...". Usually it is NOT obvious from the title! Some names may or may not be good for your Wiki...

Top Cool Wiki Names:

The following names are ones which may be moved off this list. This being a Wiki, promote or demote as you wish.

Demoted Cool Wiki Names:
WikiNames Metadiscussion Pages

Adding pages as I come across them. I'm noticing some are either stale, outdated, or don't/haven't reflected what really goes on in Wiki. Hopefully, we can refine many these into a smaller number of easily digestable signal rich pages and encourage resolution on the still-controversial ones. (DoubleWordLinkPattern inspired this burst) -- JoeWeaver

Good and bad kluges used in making a valid name

How page names affect parallel discussion

General page splitting

See LongTitlesSmell for a discussion on WhenToCreatePages in terms of PageSplit?s

I once complained that the lack of "Book" in some wiki names is misleading and confusing, but cannot find the discussion anymore. I've been "tricked" probably about 20 times already by such titles.

The justification was that "Book" is allegedly HungarianNotation. I dispute that. It is not a "type", but an attribute or a set. For example, "SmallGreenFrog" is a title that belongs to the "smallness" set, the "greenness" set, and the "frog" set. Also belonging to the "book" set is the same kind of thing. Thus, I reject the HungarianNotation argument. (Further, what are "types" is debatable and potentially fuzzy.) The main goal of a title should be clarity. Clarity should trump naming dogma. I'd put the goals in this order:


Sep. 2011, I'm still pissed about this issue because I keep running into the same trap. This Sep. 2011 statement is for venting only. Please feel free to delete it in a few months. Arrrrrrg. --top


View edit of September 9, 2011 or FindPage with title or text search