This page is for discussing the contents of 2010 City Council Election.

I am trying to figure out the logic of the wiki naming conventions... when there is a City Council election, we name the page "<Year> City Council Election" (even though there are other things on the ballot), but for other elections, we name the page "<Month> <Year> Election." Is that right? Seems a bit odd to me, but I'll go with it... and if there is a reason, I'll feel better if I hear it. —CovertProfessor

  • There can only be one CCE per year? I think they were by year until that year there were two elections because of the special election, but CCEs remained by year. Are you advocating a change? If there's a better idea, let's hear it! -jw
    • I'd say let's just make all of the elections follow the "<Month> <Year> Election" format... though it means a lot of work to clean up the old pages. Also — yeah, all of the candidates should link back to the appropriate election page, and not just the city council page. I'll do that once we settle on the naming scheme. —cp
      • It should definitely be <year> <month> ... for the same reason that the Comment dates are YYYY-MM-DD (ISO 8601). If you don't put the most significant (Year) before the month, etc. it won't sort right. Also, putting the date before the item name means everything will be sorted in a rational order. "2010 City Council Election" fits this form, so would "2010-06-08 City Council Election". In all cases, put more significant numbers/terms before (left of) less significant numbers/terms (just like we write our numbers). —SteveDavison
        • I swear I typed a reply that read like this. The only time month should go first is when it is spelled out. March 2010, but 2010-03. -jw
          • Year-month sorts properly and is preferred by computer-oriented types. Month-year is more common in the U.S., where everything is done back-asswardly, and so that format is more friendly for the average user. (And yeah, I mean March 2010, not 03-2010 — see, e.g., November 2007 Election). I can live with it either way — what is bugging me is that some elections are "city council" elections (even though they include more than just city council elections) and others are just "elections." —cp
            • I've noticed Google and several other online sources are using ISO dates1, hopefully making that format more familiar. And yes, I recognize and agree with your basic issue, I think we're just sorting out how to name them at this point. I have no problem zipping through and helping rename them tomorrow or Sunday. Personally, I just want to give enough time for people to weigh in before such a big change to so many entries. -jw
              • Yeah, and I'm OK with any consistent format, as I said, so I agree about getting more people to weigh in. Academia is such an international business that I have taken to writing things like 12 March 2010. I figure everyone can understand that, whereas as you point out 12-03-2010 is ambiguous (and doesn't sort well!). —cp
                • I also like the "Month Year Election" format. It'll give some consistency on the Elections page, or anywhere else they might end up being listed. Also, I don't know that it's necessary to list the YYYY-MM-DD date for each. Month and year in the page name is fine; anyone who wants to know the day can easily click the link. Right now it looks a little silly. —TomGarberson

Proposed Formats

Format A - ["2010-03 Election"] — Less common, but used on internet and wiki.

Format B - ["2010 March Election"] — Does not line up, odd phrasing

Format C - ["March 2010 Election"] — Common phrasing, does not line up, does not sort easily

Format D - ["2010 Election"] — Needs a disambiguation for multiple elections in a single year (how common?)

  • Other options were left out as nobody seemed to really support them. Add another option if you feel strongly about it. If a couple emerge as leaders, it would probably be a good idea to see them in a list.

Choice Tallied Opinions

  • JW - C, A, B (plus a D for an overview, as I note under TG's comments below) although I am very likely to change it as I return to this entry and reread them.
  • TG - C, B, A, D - D isn't accurate a lot of the time (see, e.g., primary elections listed on the Elections page), A doesn't look very good. With only a couple of entries per year (at most), lining up won't be that big a problem, and no one will have trouble finding the right year.
    • Yes, and even if there is a different format, either ["YEAR Elections"] can link to all elections for that year, including UCD elections, or (even better, IMO) ["YEAR Politics"] can include all elections, appointments, resignations, laws, etc in a simple overview.
      • I really like the idea of the ["YEAR Politics"] page for further organization. It's a great way to collect the various happenings during a year, from UCD to Davis and Yolo to larger-scope stuff. It should link to the individual election pages, though, not contain all the information. If everything were on one page it could get extremely cluttered. -tg
        • Agreed. —cp
        • Yup... that's why I called it a simple overview. -jw
  • CP - C, B, A, D — for the same reasons as TG. I think A will be confusing for most 'mericans.
  • WL — C, D, A, B

Need to be linked

  • Jon Li
  • Daniel Watts

    Where do these need to be linked? They are already linked to from the 2010 City Council Election page.

    • Linked back to the election page (when they were added here, they weren't linked back), and I was compiling a list for a Nav include.
      • I don't think any of the candidate pages link back to the election page.


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2012-06-01 21:25:31   Move to end discussion without further action, unless any interested parties wish to provide further input. —jefftolentino

2012-06-01 21:26:18   Some renaming of pages is probably in order. —CovertProfessor


1. Probably for the same reason they are used in the very multicultural Caribbean: USians and Europeans/South Americans are otherwise unable to read each other's dates when one writes 3/10/2010 and the other writes 10/3/2010 for the same date. Silly "same language, different conventions". Not a problem here, but the format has grown in popularity in the US over the life of the wiki.