disentangle admin cards from coded cards+discussion
Cards close to the fuzzy line re admin/non-admin are "by name", etc. and
*linkers, *plus cards, *tagged, etc.
I see these as one path for end users getting under the hood into Wagn. Also, i've realized that even seeing a "+" in a card name is going to clue them in that there's something a bit geeky going on here. So, i'm inclined to have names that pretty much make sense in plus card names as English not be star cards. Note that in the future i expect this to develop very far, in really interesting directions, like "Wiki+linkers+just Events+in Eugene+on Wednesdays+by name"
"by name" and the other bys fit, perhaps with a little renaming so that they make sense as natural language:
- by create -> by date added
- by update -> by date edited
Relatedness cards are harder. Some are clearly more content-ish; i'd be inclined drop the star from:
- *tagged (certainly; to be consistent with tags not having a star)
- *editors, *cards edited
- *watching, *watchers
- *roles
However, "editor" is a term that some Wagns definitely want to use. This might come up for watching or watchers as well; and we already have a Role card, although in this case there's no functionalty collision, and they are actually referring to the same thing. Ideas?
These are the generic card relationships, which i could go either way on:
- *plus cards -> ??
- *plus parts
- *linkers, *links
- *includers, *inclusions
There's a pattern where when some star card names show up in the interface we want to drop the star. E.g., the *community Related subtab, and *list, *radio, etc. if we want those as *input+*right+*options. The former is handled by code so it can customly remove the star, but the latter is pure Wagneering, so, hrm. Ideas?