6

Several references to the RPi in titles have been replaced by "a unit" or "the device", as per Using “Raspberry Pi” in titles (and questions). Is this right? Was it the intention?

Examples

closed as primarily opinion-based by Tibor, Jivings, syb0rg, lenik, Bex Feb 16 '15 at 8:06

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

17

Are these overly pedantic micro-edit policies getting out of hand?

I really do appreciate the tremendous efforts to get this site ready for opening day. This is going to be a fantastic site with a first-rate community — But there's also a point where these efforts turn into rules just looking for a problem. What you'll end up with is a foreboding community with a faq that looks like the bulleted list from hell.

So regarding "Are we replacing all…"

You have to be really careful with these sweeping binary policy decisions. Your main source of traffic into this site is Google search. You're going to turn this site from one about "Raspberry Pi" to one about "the device & unit." These misguided efforts to enforce some sense of "verboten redundancy" will only make your content look stilted and unnatural… and un-findable.

Relax and write what feels natural to you. Clarity is paramount in titles. If the question feels well-written if posed in the form

"How do I reboot my RaspPi?"

… then write that. But please don't assemble an enforcer squad to change all such occurrences to

"How do I reboot the aforementioned device?"

Take a look at the title lists in these sites:

Bitcoin

SharePoint

It all flows very naturally. Most of the questions provide plenty of context — all without codifying an all-or-nothing policy.

Edit the question if it can be improved. But think about the context of what you are doing. Saying, "Is it possible to receive an electric shock by touching a unit while it's on?" is simply a horrible title, as are the other "improvements."

  • 1
    Good answer. The google / 'searchability' point is especially important. – Andrew Fogg Jun 16 '12 at 22:43
  • +1 Agreed. We want answers given here to be quickly available to the public. – Shalom Craimer Jun 19 '12 at 21:18
5

I'm glad this has come up - I've seen a few suggested edits I've rejected that actually made the title more ambiguous or less readable by removing the "RPi" reference (in whatever abbreviation / form.)

While I agree with removing it from the title where the question can be represented in the same way in a more succinct form, please don't blindly remove it if there's not a better way of putting it (or it's just a case of substituting it with "the device".) That's not the point!

3

No

It was the intention of the other question to minimise its use. In these cases, its use is justified.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .