Talk:Naming conventions

Discussion

I would like to move a few pages around, to make them adhere to some simple to remember naming conventions. The following therefore is a suggestion, please feel free to discuss, add and comment. When there is enough of a consensus, ReletBot could do the dirty work. -- relet 15:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I support both. I would have argued for book title capitalization, but the Wikipedia standard is reluctantly acceptable to me.

I also suggest avoiding words in page titles that have variant english spellings (e.g. ize/ise, our/or, and the doubled l in participles). So use "Travel" instead of "Travelling," for example. -Robyn 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

More support for the whole thing. That capitalization chaos is currently the worst thing about categori(z/s)ing. --Ekorren 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You should think about changing the page templates provided in the help section to follow these conventions. For example, right now the category all new graticule pages are put in is "Inactive Graticules", if the template is used. --Meghan 15:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Can I have a link please? :) I've changed it on Template:Expedition, but I didn't know the graticule template. -- relet 17:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Creating a Graticule Page -Meghan 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved all achievement pages now that are listed in the appropriate categories. I know that I missed some - in that case please fix the categories, too. -- relet 18:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it, the Gratuitous ribbon achievement probably shouldn't have "ahievement" in its category name. Suggest an alternative? -Robyn 18:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply "gratuitous ribbon award"? -- Benjw 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgia who?

Proposed on #geohashing: Would anyone object to adding United States or Canada to the appropriate pages and producing redirects from the current pages? This would make those page names longer, but would make them more similar to the graticule names of other pages. Note that just naming it City, United States or City, Canada won't work due to name collisions with popular place names. E.g. Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine --aperfectring 23:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't vote for it. But if:

• people legitimately want it because it's causing confusion or breaking programs or something, and
• the reletbot doesn't start creating pages with default links including the country name

then I would reluctantly assent. But why? Couldn't you just create redirects from the super-long versions instead of saddling us with ridiculously long graticule names? It's bad enough typing [[Vancouver, British Columbia]] all the time without having to tack on Canada every time I make a link. I suppose it's all the fault of whoever it was who translated «Грузия» as "Georgia." Or of whoever named a state after an existing country without tacking on "New." Say, maybe we can get the Georgia, USA legislature to change the name of their state.

I vote for no changes unless there is a compelling reason to change the status quo, that can't be rectified by having disambiguations on just the two Georgias. Consistency for consistency's sake is not the best solution here. -Robyn 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I really like the "two-name" grat naming standard -- it gives you some information about the whereabouts (geographic or political) of the place without trying to stuff everything into the title. That's what the categories are for. And after all, the actual coordinates are only a click away. --starbird 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

File names?

There is definitely a naming convention for expedition pages, and there seems to be one fairly well in use for image files; it might be worth putting them here for new users to see. Or would there be a better place for it? -- Rhonda 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we need a full on naming convention for images, just having a "Many people have found this to work quite well" type of thing is probably best. I don't think most people know that a naming convention page even exists. I know I didn't for the longest time. If we do anything (whether it be suggestion, convention, or something else entirely), it should probably be in a place more public than this. --aperfectring 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do think we need a naming convention, for two reasons:

• the category galleries, which are alphabetically sorted. If the pictures are named YYYY-MM-DD LAT LON Whatever, they actually sort nicely in, with the newest pictures at the end of the gallery, instead of some arbitrary place in the middle.
• lower risk of namespace clashes (provided that many people seem to ignore warnings by default without even reading them)

This page is one place where the convention should be mentioned, probably not the only one.

--Ekorren 16:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)