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
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 I'm noticing some are either stale, outdated, or don't/haven't reflected what really goes on in Wiki.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
for a discussion on WhenToCreatePages
in terms of PageSplit?
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, "Small
Frog" 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:
- Completeness or accuracy (such as excluding fairly-trivial exceptions; the topic text should do that).
- Interest or esthetics (catchy, cute, word-play, etc.) - Wiki should have a whimsical side
- Avoiding HungarianNotation
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