Page naming question - follow up to RFC

[David Nalley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Currently the page
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_Structure#Page_naming has two
different naming conventions, one for end-user docs, and one for
non-end-user docs.
The above says that single level nesting is ok for non-end-user
sub-projects. ie, we could have
/Ambassadors/Requirements_for_NA_Ambassadors (old style would have
been /Ambassadors/NA/Requirements). And that end user docs is more
akin to the RFC suggested style. The RFC iirc, says that page naming
should be more akin to "A__Docs_Project_page_named_something_better"
and abandon the /DocsProject/Pages/Better/Named/Because/Nested/A
model.

I saw a couple of messages as follow up (that focused on a specific
page) but no real discussion of the merit of the RFC or lack thereof
of page naming in general. Anyone care to wade into this discussion or
will the RFC be implemented by fiat?
I am purposefully trying to stir the pot a bit, as I recently asked
for clarification and was told that there currently isn't a standard
set - and that low list activity == poor decision making? :)


Thoughts, Flames, Comments?


David Nalley





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkibL0kACgkQkZOYj+cNI1epWwCffYn7HLtlAn/RMCfDMPmA6v7N
yVYAn3sdlCBeihfJK/4t6Vfej673IxEj
=0K7Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----