Tannin wrote:
>[agreement with compromise]
>....
> My suggestion is that we should start from the idea that if the
> intention of the article is to single out that *particular* *species*
> as opposed some *other* species, then capitalisation is correct.
>....
This seems like a good rule but I would venture to guess that the only place
the up style would be needed is in a small set of articles about the
particular animals and a few other places that compare and contrast them. The
subtle ambiguity issues that the up style addresses hardly ever come-up
outside of that context. There is, for example, no other bird in the US
called "bald eagle" other than the "Bald Eagle" that I'm aware of.
In a general context our readers are not going to get the distinction between
"bald eagle" and "Bald Eagle" anyway. But when comparing two species then
capitalization can be used to make things more clear.
This is a subtle point of grammar that I'm sure only the most astute of our
copyeditors will notice. Our naming convention on capitalization should be
updated to reflect this subtly.
There will be a problem with edit links though - under this scheme we will
tolerate up style and down style red links which could potentially result in
duplicated effort (something our naming conventions aim to reduce). But we
already live with a similar "red link problem" because we tolerate British
and American spelling variations. I'm not aware of that being real problem.
So if the people doing the bulk of the work on those articles don't mind this
side-effect then I don't mind.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
In a message dated 27/04/03 20:16:21 GMT Daylight Time, axelboldt(a)yahoo.com
writes:
> One way to fix conventions for your bird pages and get everyone on
> board would be to create a new WikiProject
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:WikiProject
> or use the existing one for the Tree of Life.
>
> Axel
>
We have created Birds as a Wikiproject
Cunc, I don't think we need to get out the firehoses here.
I am 100% certain that Mav has *not* been wasting his time here. He is
as good a Wikipedian as anyone could reasonably ask for. He has argued
his case clearly and respectfully. I have no beef with Mav, nor with
that question of his.
It is equally true that the people who ARE doing the hard yards in the
fauna entries are NOT the ones who keep interfering with them. Everyone
working in the area knows perfectly well that species names are
capitalised, and we have all run afoul of the hit and run edits of the
people who (although undoubtedly sincere and meaning well) are NOT
working in the area, and often have no expertise in it. Neither Mav nor
I have got personal about this disagreement, nor do I think it likey
that either of us will.
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)
I've read Tannin's and Mav's recent contibutions, and I'm happy with the
redirect solution. Can this be displayed somewhere obvious, because I still
think that Tannin, Kingturtle and me are still going to get capitals within
the articles removed?
Jim
JT wrote:
>...
>If an expert on an area writes a page that shows that
>that expert knows what s/he is talking about, why should
>someone who knows nothing on the topic and may not
>have heard about the topic until s/he saw the article, have
>the right to decide that THEY know the correct capitalisation
>and change everything?
>....
Becasue we are a wiki. I also don't like the premise of your statement; our
many copyeditors do have a good deal of expertise on the normal rules of
grammar, what a proper noun vs a common noun is and also the needs of a wiki
like Wikipedia. We also know to defer to well-respected manuals of style on
this issue (which prefer down style in mixed environments like an
encyclopedia or other general reference). When in doubt we know to read other
similar publications and see how they capitalize certain terms. They also use
the down style. I'm also a biologist. So your presumption that we "know
nothing" is a bit insulting.
>....
>...accurate articles I have seen on wiki which
>have been reduced to semi-literate gibberish
>by clumsy illinformed editing and screwed capitalisation
>based on questionable wiki conventions on capitalisation.
And Tannin and I were being so polite to each other. Thanks for reducing this
polite discussion to name calling.
Good day.
--mav
Mav writes:
> Thus common nouns (those that tell the "kind" of something) are not
> capitalized but proper nouns (those that name a singular, specific person,
> place or thing) are capitalized. Anything other than that complicates
> matters.
This sounds logical but is completely inconsistent. Consider
V-1 Flying Bomb: This is a *kind* of aircraft, but it is capitalised
Labrador Retriever: This is a *kind* of dog, but it is capitalised
Splendid Fairy-wren: This is a specific *kind* of fairy-wren, which is
why it too is capitalised. (A non-specific kind is written as
plain"fairy-wren".)
The rules of correct capitalisation for species are plain and in the
main straightforward. Those of us who do the vast bulk of the work in
the fauna entries all know those rules and use them - which is
precisely why we all have such difficulty when well-meaning people come
along and ask us to ignore them!
The goal of the encyclopedia is indeed to be consistent. Right now it
is highly *inconsistent* in that it uses the correct term for most
things but tries to impose incorrect and ambiguous terms on only *some*
of the fauna.
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)
I missed the email discussion, but for the people who are frustrated
by the lack of agreement, why do I see nothing about species names
under [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]]? I apply a specific set of
conventions to navy ship articles for instance, but if I haven't
written one of them down, I don't feel like I have much grounds for
complaint if someone doesn't follow it when copyediting.
I get the sense that people have now reached a compromise involving
redirects, but please, let's get it written down where the
less-informed like myself can read it and know what the rules are
going to be.
On redirects in general, I keep hearing the suggestion that the use
of a redirect is somehow insulting to the reader, and should therefore
be discouraged. Has anybody ever talked to an actual user (not another
Wikipedian), and gotten that sense of insult? My own reaction is more
like "oh, I didn't know that was the full/proper name" or "oh yeah".
My own bit of survey of users showed that a) my wife thinks
Wikipedia is lame because it doesn't state that "W" has a 91 IQ
(although she likes the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with
Saddam), and that b) my father lost interest when in four clicks
of "random page", he got the same page twice (not in a row), thus
conveying the impression that wikipedia was kind of small.
Neither had an opinion on redirects.
Stan
Tannin wrote:
>...[Kind words - thank you :-) ]...
>
>Bluntly, we, the people who actually WRITE the fauna
>entries, are sick and tired of being buggerised about, for
>no good reason, by people who do NOT contribute to them.
>Over the last month or so there has been a massive
>improvement to the bird sections in particular. There is a
>huge amount more still to do, but the concentrated efforts of
>three or four regular contributors is really starting to show
>results. Please, if you don't want to help with this project,
>at least stop interfering with it.
But I'm trying to do just that - help with the project and make sure that the
project is consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. I've helped Jim with
the formatting of the great public domain pictures and helped him attribute
the source of those images correctly on the image description pages.
The taxobox tables that you are using I also helped develop (and in fact I'm
more proud of these tables than the element tables). Readers are contributors
in Wikipedia and I read a lot and contribute a bit here and a bit there. The
goal is to make Wikipedia a cohesive whole and greater than the sum of its
parts.
In the big picture view it is more important for us to avoid the use of
specialized grammar rules and concentrate on general rules - rules known,
used and expected by our general English-speaking audience and are used by
other general reference works (encyclopedias, dictionaries, and most
textbooks).
Thus common nouns (those that tell the "kind" of something) are not
capitalized but proper nouns (those that name a singular, specific person,
place or thing) are capitalized. Anything other than that complicates
matters.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Hi
It seems to be working again. For Tim Starling, Sannse is right. I have had a
user name since February 2002 and have been a sysop since April 2002 or so,
which makes it at least a year. It is not a question of an anonymous IP being
blocked.
On the other hand, I do have a problem with anonymous IPs being blocked in an
effort to block problematic users. Imagine how it looks for a new user, just
getting her feet wet, to receive a message that she is blocked because she is
suspected of being someone else. I do not know the solution, but some effort
should be made to find one. BTW, I am an aol user, but I generally sign on
through my Verizon account.
Well, in any event, it's good to be back.
Danny
Wikikarma (I like the idea): a bunch of articles on the first few prime
ministers of Iraq--the 1920s are done.
Hi
Can we figure out a better way to block users. I keep getting messages that I
am blocked because I am Michael. I can understand the need to block Michael,
but I don't think I should bear the brunt of the punishment because I happen
to use the same server as him.
Danny