User talk:Mike Cline/USCAN Working Group Drafts/Proposals Dashboard

Renaming "caucuses"

Below, in three separate sections, are the questions Diana posted about the options for renaming caucuses. I'm not sure if this is the right place to put them; Mike Cline, please move as appropriate.

Ranked preferences

Please rank your preferences among the terms below (or as many as you feel like ranking) ~ I have tried to list these in the order they've been proposed. Please alert me if I left any out.

Symposium Curium Collegium Concordium Wikologists/Wikology caucus section cluster interest group coalition affiliate collaborative cooperative pod unit group team

Replies

In order: interest group, group, team, section, unit, affiliate, caucus, coalition, pod, collaborative, cooperative, cluster, Curium, Symposium, Collegium, Concordium, Wikologists/Wikology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My ranked preferences: Team, Caucus, Group, Concordium, Collaborative, Cooperative, Collegium, Coalition, Section. I'm not keen on: Symposium (in academic means a group of papers published or presented), Interest group (makes it too long), Curium (sounds monastic), Unit (like chapter, has a specific meaning ~ many academic departments are called units), Pod (sounds too Apple like; also like a pres-school group of kids), Cluster (Rebecca didn't like this and I defer to her), Wikologist (seems too complex) DStrassmann (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"interest group" or "group" is a preference for me, too. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My top 3 (in order) are group, caucus, unit. I guess pod and section would round off my top 5. (Shamira, from mailing list)
Top 5 (In order): 1. Group 2. Unit 3. Section 4. Pod 5. Cluster Pjthepiano (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Top 5 for moi - 1. Collaborative 2. Group 3. Team 4. Curia 5. Cooperative The Interior (Talk) 05:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My ranked preferences: Team, Interest Group, Caucus, Collaborative, Coalition, Cooperative, Group, Section, Unit, Collegium, Concordium, Curium, Pod, Cluster, Wikologist. Etlib (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Team 2. Caucus 3. Group (thopugh group should probably be qualified)--Pharos (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix?

Should the term have a prefix, e.g Wiki or WikiEd? If so, present your suggestions in rank order.

Replies

No. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Without a prefix, the entities could be confused. For example, using Patrick's example, a local Princeton entity would be the "Princeton Group;" I believe there is already a financial firm in Princeton with the same name. Rank order of Prefixes: WikiEd, Wiki DStrassmann (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a "Wiki" or "WikiEd" prefix (and don't have a strong preference for either one), but more than that and it starts to get unwieldy. "Princeton WikiSymposium" is a mouthful. (Shamira, from mailing list)
Yes. I agree that saying Princeton Group is not that helpful. Princeton Wikipedia Education Group or Physics Wikipedia Education Group (or something along those lines) would be better. Pjthepiano (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Think it needs something identifying a wiki affiliation. The Interior (Talk) 05:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Etlib (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--Pharos (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precede by theme or locality name?

Should the Prefix (if used) and the term be preceded by the theme or locality name? For example if all three are included, a complete term could be, as Patrick suggested, "Princeton Wiki Symposium."

Replies

Yes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. DStrassmann (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Pjthepiano (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oui. The Interior (Talk) 05:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Etlib (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a better alternative

Just a suggestion to simplify resolution of this particular Caucus issue. If we initially named these units Teams then there would be little confusion as to what they were and how they were expected to function. Teams exist to achieve team goals. For example:

WikiEd Team (Princeton) would be composed of Ambassadors (Wikipedians), Professors, Librarians, University Staff that were interested in and committed to furthering the use of WP in education at Princeton. The emphasis would be on this group of individuals indeed functioning as a team to advance the needs of all stakeholder groups in the team’s activities within Princeton. US/CAN EP support to the WikiEd Team would be tailored to the specific needs of the team.
WikiEd Team (Agriculture) would be composed of Ambassadors (Wikipedians), Professors, Librarians, University Staff, etc in multiple regions that were interested in and committed to furthering the use of WP in education related to Agriculture. The emphasis would be on this group of individuals indeed functioning as a team to advance the needs of all stakeholder groups in the team’s activities within the thematic area of Agriculture. US/CAN EP support to the WikiEd team would be tailored to the specific needs of the team.

--Mike Cline (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like team, and have added it into my preference ranking as #1. DStrassmann (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the term team too. I have also added it to my preference rankings. Etlib (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team is a late-entry winner for me, too.--Pharos (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]