All-Party Parliamentary Group for Future Generations

Discuss the topic on this page. Here is the place to ask questions and propose changes.
Comments12
Sorted by

What is the connection between APPGFG and the Simon Institute? (Apologies if this is obvious: I haven't done any research on these organizations yet.)

The connection was actually that the Simon Institute post mentioned the APPGFG. As discussed in some other thread somewhere, I think org tags should also cover posts that discuss an org, even if they aren't by the org. (Aaron indicated agreeing, and maybe had a stronger version of this view.)

But now that I look closer, I see the mention is fairly brief. That might be fine if this tag was already quite populated, but it seems confusing when only 5 posts have the tag. (It was also definitely confusing that that post showed up first here - I've now strong upvoted the tag for a more relevant APPGFG to head off that problem in future.)

So I've now removed the tag from the Simon Institute.

Makes sense. Thank you!

Maybe the tag name should just be APPGFG?

Ok, given that that suggestion got a vote, I've now shortened the name. But I chose a middle ground - APPG on Future Generations. That seems to be what the group themselves default to in communications (based on the most relevant Forum post and a quick look at their site), and it keeps "future generations" in the name which seems handy for unfamiliar readers.

It's still possible that the shorter or longer names would be better; people could change it again later.

This gave me an excuse to reflect on what our general policy should be, and I think I lean towards following Wikipedia and use the full name as the name of the article, while providing the abbreviated version in parenthesis and using that version for the remainder of the article. I believe this is the general practice of most encyclopedias.

(FWIW, I was not in favor of changing the name but didn't think it was appropriate to express my preference by downvoting you.)

The main drawback, I think, is that the full name will be displayed below each article with which the tag is associated, and this may be undesirable for very long names or names whose abbreviated forms are much better known to the public. I think this should be solved at the technical level by having shorter versions of all article names and using these shorter versions when appropriate. I'm not sure if the tech team would be willing to implement this feature, though in any case I wouldn't give it high priority.

The two examples that spring to mine as places where this is relevant is this org (APPGFG) and ALLFED. I'd guess that both orgs' full names are as long as 2 or 3 regular tags, which does seem like it gives undue attention to that tag on an article in particular. And in the case for ALLFED at least, the shortened name is more widely known.

If I don't update my beliefs based on now knowing what Wikipedia does, then it seems to me like it'd be best for us to either:

  1. Use the best known name even when it's an abbreviation
  2. Use whatever name the org would introduce itself to new people as (e.g. I imagine ALLFED would often say ALLFED, but the LTFF would introduce itself as the Long-Term Future Fund, even if the acronym might be more commonly used in within-community discussions)
  3. Use the best known name except when that'd be really long, in which case we use a shortened version

But it does also seem good to have some tendency to mimic Wikipedia's policies, both so that people used to those will adapt more easily to the Forum wiki and because those policies were probably mostly chosen for good reasons.

So ultimately I feel unsure, and don't have a strong stance.

(You can also feel free to rename this specific entry.)

ALLFED does look like an example where the acronym seems more appropriate than the full name for the article name. I took a closer look at how Wikipedia handles this and it turns I was mistaken. The relevant section of their Manual of Style states that "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject", and they offer 'NASA' as an example. So I would say that we should adopt this as our practice, if others agree.

Turning to the specific case that prompted this discussion, I am not familiar with how people generally refer to this organization, though Wikipedia has chosen to list the full name. I would be inclined to follow them here.

So I would say that we should adopt this as our practice, if others agree.

Yeah, that sounds good. 

Though I do think this is a case where there's a relevant difference between Wikipedia and the Forum Wiki (in a way that I'm less sure is so for the citation style, for example): Our entries are also tags. Wikipedia entry names only really need to be shown at the top of a single page, and maybe some low-traffic pages that just list lots of articles; every other link to them can use an abbreviation. But our entries will show up on many pages, right at the top. So I think that creates some reason to be a bit more inclined towards abbreviations than Wikipedia is.

(This could also be fixed by some change to the code such that the title shown on the Wiki entry doesn't have to be the tag name shown on posts, as you suggest earlier.)

I would be inclined to follow them here.

I think I weakly lean towards APPG for Future Generations for the brevity reason, but it's not a strong stance.

Do others have thoughts?

Okay, no one else has expressed an opinion. I have a pretty strong preference against hybrid forms were only part of the name is abbreviated, and since Michael said he had only a weak preference in favor of the current name, I decided to change it to All-Party Parliamentary Group for Future Generations. Feel free to leave follow-up comments if this feels unsatisfactory.