<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#000000>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Responses to mav and
Steven<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>Mav: But the English word for the
city is Prague, not Praha. If you present an <BR>average English speaker with
the word "Praha" they are not going to know what <BR>that is. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Well, you might consider the notion
that people come to an encyclopedia to learn something. And this ignores the
fact that a search for Prague will lead to Praha.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>But present the same English
speaker with "Prague" and they will <BR>recognize it. Same for Deutschland vs
Germany. Why should we needlessly <BR>confuse our readers and make them feel
stupid for not knowing the "right" <BR>word for Prauge or Germany? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Only people who are vain about what
they know, feel disturbed by what they dont. An Encyclopedia is here to present
information - not to simply agree with what people already
know.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>They will probably take one look
at the foreign <BR>>title and leave thinking they landed in the wrong place
(if not the wrong <BR>>language). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Not if they see its redirected from
"Prague" below - and boy, what a low opinion of people you must have to think
they would be so... confused. Is humanity a 'glass half full' or 'half
empty?'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>It is counter to our purpose of
being understandable by the largest number of English <BR>>speakers and
especially native English speakers (when writing in English, of <BR>>course).
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Once again - the argument that people
are too stupid and confuseable to understand.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>That will only lead to having
misdirected links as English speakers <BR>>can't remember the spelling of a
foreign word. We already had a major fight <BR>>with Lir over Cristóbal Colón
vs Christopher Columbus - please don't open up <BR>>old wounds. You have
already pissed a bunch of people off by having a nick in <BR>>non-English
characters because they couldn't read or pronounce it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Once again - referring to how
confused people are. Well, Lir was right. The only people who
disagree with that were people stuck in convention. Its certainly will sound
like its from Neptune when it defies the typical conventions - but this requires
people to be somewhat unconventional. You and I agree on a number of
things - among them should be the principle that simply "not pissing people off"
- deserves no merits on its own.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>(I *do hope you have AC up there in
Sac, BTW) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>All that matters is what the
majority of English speakers recognize as the <BR>>title and for us to make
modifications and compromises where needed to <BR>>overcome ambiguities. Oh,
and there is no such thing as a "real name" for <BR>>anything - words play a
nominative role and different words are used in <BR>>different languages to
mean the same things. This is such an elementary fact <BR>>that I'm
embarrassed to have to mention it to you. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Im glad your embarrased. It reveals
some altruistic fact I dont have time to go into...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>But you do have some strong points to
address - however, Im calling for a change of convention - Im not making claim
that its *not conventional to simply follow convention. I'm calling to question
the *merits of that convention - and whether its a convention from another era -
say, 1672. (Before telephones, I might add.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>If you watched John Stossel's
piece last night - he showed a neighborhood in Queens destroyed by people
bent on ridding foreign language signs from the streets - under the guise of
clutter - and other civil codes. The city went along with it - because such laws
were on the books - (why argue with the law after awl?) But the city also
was fining people three or four digits for just having the awnings there to
begin with. The smirks on the faces of the perpetrators - also invoking
"America" - and "this is how we do it in America" - was disgusting beyond
description. Its a similar attitude.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>As for their not being "real names
for things" - I suppose if we decided to change the USA to "MeiGuo" or "Estados
Unidentes" you would have to face your own statement in reverse. In that
case - I would be in favor of calling it the "United States of
America" - cause thats its name. The reason why there are "proper" names
for things tends to be relative to language. Now - you may want to look
like a colonialist and go argue with somebody Chinese over the proper article
title for "Yangtze" - see where it gets you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>>Sometimes this means we use words
that are very close to or even the same as <BR>>the words used in the country
of origin of the thing but other times it means <BR>>we use an Anglicization
(which is the process modifying foreign words to make <BR>>it easier for
English speakers to use and pronounce them). All that matters <BR>>is what is
known and recognized by most English speakers at all familiar with <BR>>the
subject (and making sure there are no significant naming conflicts and
<BR>>also making sure we aren't just making up Anglicizations). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Well your toughest argument by far is
based on a limitation of the En wikipedia to en "native English speakers" -
again. As a said before -- being the lingua franca has advantages and
disadvantages. Among the disadvantages is that English is no longer owned
bu the English ("England for the English")</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>|This aids in linking for writers and
the ability of readers to find what they <BR>|are looking for. That's all.
Redirects can and should be used for less common <BR>|forms of the term so that
people looking for those forms can find the <BR>|articles too. But leave the
terms that are most widely known and used by <BR>|English speakers at the head
of their articles - not some form of the name <BR>|that is seldom used by
English speakers (especially native ones).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Mav's argument here rests entirely
upon his assumption of a unique reason for redirects - and then he somewhat
concedes the point with the word "should." Fine! Your opinion -
that redirects "should" be limited to one use is noted. Lets see what
other people think, shall we?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>|And article titles should reflect a
strong bias toward what English speakers <BR>|are going to most often write in a
sentence when referring to the subject <BR>|(with modifications based on
ambiguities). That whole point of doing this is <BR>|to maximize the number of
direct links to a title - redirects are a hack used <BR>|for less common terms.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>I disagree, again, that the only
reason for redirects is a "hack".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>As for "reflecting a bias" -- Im not
sure this is NPOV. *IS the area of language forever
to be an issue where the prime directive of NPOV is
undermined?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>-SM-</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>