Subpage structure--naming and namespace
In a previous thread, Wayne wrote:
Jim and I had a chat about the sub-page conventions. Initially I was thinking along the same lines as you -- ie having the Modules in the main namespace and not sub-pages of the course homepage. In the case of AST1000, we opted for having all the course materials as a subpage of the AST1000 page, as we though that the contributing institution would like to retain identity as the original contributor. (This is different from the Saylor course in the sense that that AST1000 was developed by USQ.)
I agree having the Modules in the main wiki space will facilitate greater reuse options and will be fine in my view. We just need to think carefully about the style guidelines -- eg if the contributing institution wishes to retain identity or association with the course, that we then create subpages.
Yes- -we need to provide style guidelines for naming pages. I would recommend that we don't included references to "Module" or numbers in the page titles because in reuse scenarios course may wish to use an alternate sequence. The specific OERu course pages will still be able to use the "Module" label in the pipe for the link -- so I recommend that we don't include numbers or module references in the page titles. Thoughts?
We have a few questions to decide:
- Put the modules in the main namespace, or as subpages under the Art Appreciation and Techniques main page.
- I'm in favor of putting them in the main space.
- Wording for titles: include the word module or not
- As Wayne suggests, I agree that we should not include "Module" or numbers in the title, in particular if we choose to put the module pages in the main namespace.
- What should be the convention for capitalization in the titles?
- I've come to be a fan of the Wikipedia capitalization default, only the first word in the title is capitalized, with the exception being if the name includes the name of a thing that would normally be capitalised when writing about it. Just my preference, but not one that's strongly held.
Further thoughts?
Lets through around ideas looking at the pros and cons during our skype catch-up.
Briefly:
- For this course - I think the main namespace is the best solution. The implication is that we should provide guidelines for OERu anchor partners when taking this decision for inclusion in the style guide. I think we may need a rough consensus poll on this one to gauge opinion.
- We're agreed on avoiding Module or numbers in page titles ;-)
- I too am a fan of first letter capitalized in page titles with the exceptions. Also a guidline to use underscores instead of spaces would be nice.
Look forward to our chat.
Agreed, we can discuss further at our Monday chat.
Just to get us thinking are there other topics on the list for discussion on Monday? Maybe it would be useful to start a thread or section on our planning page, so we can document results following our meeting.
Alison
At our Skype call today, Irwin, Wayne and I confirmed that we will go with the following structure: modules set in main namespace and without numbers in the titles. We failed to discuss capitalization. I will check with Irwin to confirm that he is OK with the first letter capitalization style.
I agree with all the above. And given that the ART course has gone through multiple hands and we are another party in the 4R chain, we don't need to maintain institutional identity in the nomenclature and placement.--Irwin DeVries 05:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
