Well, those are just examples (the Python guidelines specify the exact naming scheme) but I agree that they should be fixed up. I'll go ahead and do that now.

So I didn't have a chance to work on this today but I've put a bit of work into getting things fixed up.

What I found was that the python section is in worse shape than this draft suggests, and needs basically a complete redo. The table under the python3 module section is pretty much completely wrong.

And I did actually rewrite it all, and was happy with that. And then the wiki lost my edits.

Currently trying to put it back together, and saving constantly. I want a command line interface to the wiki. Or really anything besides these horrible web forms.

OK, after losing two more sets of edits, I have something done. It's late, though, so please read over it and make sure I haven't simply fallen asleep at the keyboard and typed a bunch of gibberish. I'll lint this in the morning in the hope of fixing any particularly egregious idiocy before anyone notices.

A good diff is:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3ANamingGuidelines&diff=current&oldid=447056

(there's a change before that where I just took out the useless anchor tags).

tibbs, comments on your draft:

The package name should reflect the upstream name of the Python module, and
should generally take into account the name of the module used when importing
it in Python scripts.

I think the package name should be based the name of the upstream project, e.g. "PyYAML" (which provides the "yaml" module) or "pillow" (which provides the "PIL" module).[[BR]]
The original said that "when in doubt", you should use the name of the importable module. Even that suggestion might have been too strong.

Source packages for Python modules should be named using the python- prefix.

For python3-only libraries, should we allow the "python3-" prefix even for source packages?