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 '''G''''''uessTheRightName''' you end up making '''W''''''ronglyNamedPage''' - except '''T''''''hereAreNoWrongNames''', just '''D''''''ifferentNames'''.


----

'''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:''

	* ChooseYourRutCarefully
	* ConstIsaVirus
	* FourVariables
	* HeisenBug
	* LightenTheTroika
	* SpecializationIsForInsects
	* VirtualDentist
	* WillyWonkaConflictResolution
	* WikiWeapon

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:''
	* LanguageLifeSigns
	* RingerTape
	* SaneSubset
	* StarTrekSystems
	* YouDontWantAnExceptionYouWantaTimeMachine
	* ApostropheCatastrophe

----
'''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  I'm noticing some are either stale, outdated, or don't/haven't reflected what really goes on in Wiki.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

	* DoubleCharacterLinkPattern
	* DoubleWordLinkPattern
	* WikiAlphabet
	* HowCanSomeoneTypeTheirNameWithMiddleInitialIncluded

How page names affect parallel discussion

	* ShouldPageTitlesBeQuestionsOrAssertions
	* DontNamePagesThoughtsIssuesIdeasOrOpinions
	* SplitByTopicNotByOpinion

General page splitting
	
	* DontMakePartTwo
	* MoveThreadModeToDiscussionPage

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, "Small''''''Green''''''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:

* Clarity
* Brevity
* 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

--top

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

----
CategoryDiscussion