<P>And Jimmy, you were saying that Cunctator was excessively interested in consensus?
<P>Zoe
<P> <B><I>james duffy <jtdirl@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>The Cunctator has begun renaming the articles on slogans to remove the form <BR>[[Slogan: . . . ]] which had been used by general agreement. However he <BR>argued that no compromise was likely therefore he went and began renaming <BR>everything unilaterally. So we need to find some sort of agreement rather <BR>than have The Cunctator unilaterally deciding wiki policy. Otherwise we <BR>will have endless endless renaming wars.<BR><BR>I propose we use the form [[Slogan: . . . ]] rather than the alternative [[ <BR>. . . (slogan)]].<BR><BR>1. Some people complained about how we don't say [[Book: . . . ]] or [[Film: <BR>. . . ]] and that therefore putting in slogan was wrong. I disagree. A <BR>slogan is by definition POV. Used without qualification, particularly if the <BR>slogan is politically controversial, rascist, homophobic, or derogatory to <BR>some people's religious, ethnic of cultural origins, can cause offence or <BR>appear to be endorsing the POV in the slogan. The use of the word slogan in <BR>the title is necessary to distance wiki from the slogan message as it would <BR>appear on the list or on google. Doing that would NPOV it by drawing <BR>attention to the fact that we are merely repeating a slogan, not expressing <BR>one.<BR><BR>2. Putting it in brackets at the end of the line could cause problems if a <BR>slogan is long, for the '(slogan)' might not appear on goggle, if the end of <BR>a long line was cut off. Instead people simply see a POV slogan coming from <BR>wikipedia.<BR><BR>3. Putting '(slogan)' at the end means that people would be greeted with a <BR>potentially POV slogan, with which they might have a strong positive or <BR>negative reaction - prior to reaching the end of the line (if they see it at <BR>all) where it is neutralised by the word slogan. Putting the word slogan in <BR>first means that before they even read the slogan they know it is a slogan <BR>and is featuring on wiki as a slogan, not POV propaganda. The very first <BR>word people read in an article title is the first word. Not everyone reads <BR>the full title, particularly if it is a long title. So the key NPOVing word <BR>'slogan' should be where everyone can will and can see it, at the first.<BR><BR>4. Grammatically, having it at the front of the line makes more sense. For <BR>example, [[Slogan: AIDS Kills Fags Dead]] in effect reads, 'the slogan: AIDS <BR>Kills Fags Dead'. Putting it at the end effectively reads 'AIDS Kills Fags <BR>Dead - which is a slogan' As I said above, people may have a very strong <BR>reaction to that particular slogan. Using the 'slogan' word upfront NPOVs <BR>the statement by contextualising it as a slogan, not an expression of a POV. <BR>Put at the end, people may well have had an emotional POV reaction (for or <BR>against) before they reach the word slogan at the end, if they even notice <BR>it.<BR><BR>5. Using both forms (as The Cunctator seems to want) seems unnecessarily <BR>complicated. It makes logical sense to use one standard template, not two <BR>because using two (with [[Slogan: . . .]] being used for controversial <BR>slogans poses the question: who decides if a slogan is controversial <BR>enough? Some people might see a slogan as sufficiently NPOV enough to use <BR>'(slogan)' at the end. Others might disagree and the result would be an <BR>edit/renaming war. Having one template means that no-one has to form a value <BR>judgment on whether it is or is not controversial. If it is a slogan, the <BR>one universal format is used.<BR><BR>We do need to have some sort of consensus agreement on this issue set out <BR>clearly. The Cunctator has already annoyed people involved in the debate by <BR>his unilateral action. It would help the situation enormously if we had <BR>clear agreement on the form, which could then be entered as a naming <BR>convention to which people could refer, rather than producing constant rows <BR>over slogans today, tomorrow, next month, six months down the line, etc.<BR><BR>Any opinions?<BR><BR>JT<BR><BR><BR><BR>_________________________________________________________________<BR>The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* <BR>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org<BR>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">Yahoo! Platinum</a> - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">live on your desktop</a>!