All-Party Parliamentary Group for Future Generations
As of June 2022, APPGFG has received over $250,000 in funding from the Survival and Flourishing Fund.Fund,[1][2] and over $60,000 from Effective Altruism Funds.[3]
- ^
Survival and Flourishing Fund (2018) SFF-2019-Q4 S-process recommendations announcement, Survival and Flourishing Fund.
- ^
Survival and Flourishing Fund (2020) SFF-2021-H1 S-process recommendations announcement, Survival and Flourishing Fund.
- ^
Long-Term Future Fund (2019) November 2019: Long-Term Future Fund grants, Effective Altruism Funds, November.
As of June 2022, APPGFG has received over $170.$250.000 in funding from the Survival and Flourishing Fund.[1][2]
- ^
Survival and Flourishing Fund (2018) SFF-2019-Q4 S-process recommendations announcement, Survival and Flourishing Fund.
- ^
Survival and Flourishing Fund (2020) SFF-2021-H1 S-process recommendations announcement, Survival and Flourishing Fund.
Funding
As of June 2022, APPGFG has received over $170.000 in funding from the Survival and Flourishing Fund.[1]
- ^
Survival and Flourishing Fund (2020) SFF-2021-H1 S-process recommendations announcement, Survival and Flourishing Fund.
Righetti, Luca & Fin Moorhouse (2022) Lord Bird on the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill, Hear This Idea, April 5.
All-party parliamentary group. Wikipedia article.
All-Party Parliamentary Group for Future Generations. Official website.
Bibliography
Hilton, Sam (2021) A little bit of funding goes a long way: the APPG for Future Generations, in Natalie Cargill & Tyler John (eds.) The Long View: Essays on Policy, Philanthropy, and the Long-Term Future, London: First, pp. 84–92.
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.
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.
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.