Someone other than 07jjackson has created a user page with that name
containing the following:
Put your text for the new page here.
"Watchlist"{
{\b rte}
Does this user exist? Should the page be deleted?
phma
On Friday 29 November 2002 04:00 am, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> It seems that Mav doesn't hasn't even read his own policy. Before
> responding I just made a point of reading it at [[Wikipedia:Naming
> conventions (anglicization)]]. Even the qualification that he
> emphasizes is simply NOT THERE. Admittedly, even that qualification is
> better than nothing.
It is on the actual naming convention page. The parenthetical subpages are for
"Rationale and specifics" and are not the actual conventions (the conventions
are restated for convenience though.. that is where the trouble lies). Alas I
did not copy over the convention correctly when I moved the detailed
explanation off the main naming conventions page. I have already fixed my
blunder.
>Who determines that majority?
The involved parties doing research and practicing common sense. Just as you,
me and Ortolan did with the Franz Josef. Google was a useful tool but not the
last word.
> >Notice the addition of: "at all familiar with the subject" (this includes
> > all interested English speaking parties, not just the experts).
>
> "at all familiar" is a step in the right direction.
Then if nobody objects I will make this change to the general statement on the
main naming conventions page. Also if nobody objects I will add "... unless
the native form or transliteration is used by English speakers more often
than the Anglicized or English translation." to the actual Anglicization
convention on the main naming convention page and its re-statement on the
"Rationale and specifics" subpage.
> We don't need for people to be self-appointed enforcers except in the
> most egregious cases; enforcement actions only irritate people. If any
> kind of enforcement is appropriate on borderline cases it is to ensure
> that there is a redirect from the alternate form to the one actually
> used in whatever direction is needed.
I think you are reading too much into the word "enforcer." Moving a page is
analogous to fixing many bad spellings, or wikifing and reformatting a page
so that it follows our style guide. So that makes Ortolan a style enforcer,
Axel a spelling enforcer, me a naming convention enforcer and everybody here
'add useful content' enforcers. All these things aim to improve the articles,
not punish the original author.
> I would thus favour that when the difference between the native form and
> the usual English form is a matter only of diacritics that are a part of
> ISO 8859-1 the standard form should be the one with full ISO 8859-1
> diacritics. The search function should include a provision that allows
> the plain character to be treated as equivalent to the one with
> diacritics.
This is where we differ. I am content with the current preference for English
in the English language Wikipedia in toss-ups. The use of diacritics is a bit
more problematic - if and when a non-diacritic form is in very wide used, we
should prefer to use that form. But you will notice I haven't been moving
other cases from their diacritical forms and have simply been making
redirects for the (vast majority) of English speaking netcitizens that don't
know how to create diacritics with their keyboards.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Payment for this post:
Several more paras to the Billy the Kid article;
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Billy_the_Kid&diff=450052&oldid…
Creation of a stub for a recent celebrity death;
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verne_Winchell
Eclecticology wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>BTW our current primary naming convention is to use what most
>>English speakers would know and recognize as article titles with a
>>reasonable minimum of ambiguity and do any usage explanation in
>>the article itself.
>>
>Emperor "Franz Josef" of Austria: 203,000 Google hits; "Francis Joseph":
>24,500 Google hits yet we persist in using Francis Joseph pretending
>that it is most recognizable by English speakers
>
>Eclecticology
Doing a vanilla Google search is useless because it also searches non-English
pages. But I did redo the search only looking at English language pages and I
confirmed you results.
So what is the problem then? I'm not insisting that we should have an article
at [[Francis Joseph of Austria]]. In this case the article, per the
Anglicization and Names and Titles conventions, should be at [[Franz Josef of
Austria]].
I think the much of the problem that many people have about the Anglicization
convention is that they HAVEN'T READ THE DAMN THING IN CONTEXT WITH THE
OVERRIDING CONVENTION EXPRESSED IN THE GENERAL STATEMENT. Please do so now;
Anglicization convention:
Convention: Name your pages in English and place the
native transliteration on the first line of the article
unless the native form is almost always used in English.
Notice: "...unless the native form is almost always used in English."
I am all for making that sound even more permissive (and a better reflection
of the current practice I understand and help enforce) to read;
"... unless the native form or transliteration is used by English speakers
more often than the Anglicized or English translation."
General statement:
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the
majority of English speakers would most easily recognize
with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same
time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
Notice: "....article naming should give priority to what the majority of
English speakers would most easily recognize..."
I am also all for making this even more clear to reflect my longstanding
interpretation and enforcement criteria:
"....article naming should give priority to what the majority of English
speakers at all familiar with the subject would most easily recognize and
likely to use...."
Notice the addition of: "at all familiar with the subject" (this includes all
interested English speaking parties, not just the experts).
We should use what most English speakers who are aware of the subject would
most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity (with at least a
slight preference for English to decide toss-ups). Whether or not that is an
English translation, a transliteration, native form or is Anglicized is
really immaterial.
Like I already said in a previous post, subjects like Mein Kampf, Les
Miserables and Sinn Fein should be at these titles because few people would
recognize "My Struggle", "Poor Wretches" or "Ourselves Alone" as the correct
subjects.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Payment for this post:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_the_Kid (In progress)
On Wednesday 27 November 2002 04:00 am, wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org wrote:
> 1: I'd like to formally request sysop status.
You forgot a vital piece of information. By which user name do you want sysop
user rights? Tokerboy or Tucci528 (I assume Tokerboy since that is the user
name you seem to be using these days).
Either way I fully support your bid for sysophood. Tokerboy has been a great
help in the mythology and music sections and in general weeding.
BTW our current primary naming convention is to use what most English speakers
would know and recognize as article titles with a reasonable minimum of
ambiguity and do any usage explanation in the article itself.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Payment for this post:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War
There is a page called "_" which was a redirect to [[Geography of Poland]]
and is on the delenda list. As far as I can figure out, it was originally
linked to from a template of a WikiProject (_, Geography of _, etc.) and
remained in some articles (e.g. [[Ununbium]]). I tried to delete and got
Internal error. I tried these names: "_", "+", "%5F", "%20". All got the same
error. Can someone delete it manually?
phma
koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com wrote:
> It seems to me that people should know what we're here for and respect
> that, and people who don't should be asked, kindly, if their
> priorities are straight in coming to the website. As far as I'm
> concerned, the encyclopedia is what matters; there are plenty of other
> places online to chitchat, argue, or pontificate. Try yahoo!groups,
> or livejournal, or usenet, or even slashdot. Our community is unified
> in purpose, and quite frankly, anyone who is not here for that purpose
> belongs to a different community. Banning comes about IMHO because
> people aren't seeing enough community pressure to quit being an
> asshole and/or get to work.
I would agree with this completely. I fully support that we should
ask people, kindly (of course!), if their priorities are straight in
coming to the website. And that we should exert careful social
pressure on people who are being problematic.
This doesn't mean yelling at them or shaming them, since those are the
techniques of Usenet, appropriate (perhaps) to that medium, but less
than helpful in a medium of collaboration.
> So how we determine someone has nothing to contribute? Isn't that a
> bold decision? How long do we allow someone to try to contribute
> before deciding it's not worth it?
I wish I knew an easy answer to these questions. But I think there is
none. We can only be thoughtful and tolerant for awhile, and apply
pressure for awhile, and then eventually and *with the feeling that
we've failed*, we should ban as a last resort. And even then, the
door to redemption should almost always remain open.
> I believe that: 1) It should not be necessary to tell people to leave.
> The community expectation should be so great that we are here to
> build an encyclopedia that trolls and vandals are immediately and
> thoroughly discouraged. 2)I'd rather not feel compelled to tell
> people to leave because they're interfering. Most people realize it,
> and so most people don't dabble where they don't belong. 3) If
> someone proves a stubborn & insistent impediment, we should tell him
> or her to leave. 4) When we do tell someone to leave, we should be
> able to enforce it if necessary.
I think that's all basically correct. It's hard to strike the right
balance, but one thing that I do think we can do a better job of is in
educating/indoctrinating newcomers that we play nicely here, that we
aren't here to fight and argue, but to produce. That's a hard lesson to
learn, but if the social pressure is solidly in that direction, it will
usually work.
> some people are simply not helpful.
> We don't all agree who those people are, but I think we do agree that
> such people exist. For those people who won't listen to reason and
> won't listen to community pressure, we should have an accurate means
> of blocking access. We are accepting to people by default, but wasps
> should make their nests outside, not inside.
I agree.
> I daresay our standards are fairly open: come here to help build an
> encyclopedia. Do not come here to chitchat, to troll, to play. Work
> may be fun, work may not always be fun (I know this for certain), but
> work is why we are here. We are open to people who want to help; we
> are not open to people who want to hinder. We also, it seems (and
> here I'm thinking of Helga), are not open to people who want to help
> and consistently can not. Jerry Lewis can play in the
> [[wikipedia:sandbox]]; he should keep his hands off the [[muriatic acid]].
Yes.
1: I'd like to formally request sysop status.
2: I stumbled across the talk page at Vodun a week ago
or so, and some IP asked if it was the same thing as
Voodoo and if so, if the article should be moved there
because Voodoo is the more commonly used term. That
led me to the following conclusion:
I'd like to propose a minor modification to the
current naming conventions that I think will make a
lot of the different sides happy. If experts in a
field nearly universally use a different term than the
general population, the expert term should be used to
name the article. The only two I can think of that
this would apply to is Vodun and Inuit instead of
Voodoo and Eskimo. Asking my seven reasonably
educated co-workers, six out of the seven have no idea
what Vodun is (though they've heard of Voodoo) and one
thought it was the capital of "one of them southeast
Asian countries" (for those keeping score, seven out
of eight paramedics are unfamiliar with the word, with
myself the only exception). Four out of the seven
were familiar with the word "Inuit" but said they
probably wouldn't think to use it. Three claim to
have never heard it before, though all seven knew what
an Eskimo was. Because experts in the field of
religion and anthropology use "Vodun" and "Inuit" to
the complete exclusion of "Voodoo" and "Eskimo"
(except maybe to explain that they're the same thing
at the beginning of an essay or paper or whatever), I
think the Wikipedia would seem a bit... well, dumb,
having an article about Eskimos when everybody
involved with the people in question refer to them as
Inuit. I don't think this rule would apply to most of
what has been discussed, kings and queens and
satellites and latin vs common names and all, but just
to these two and maybe a handful of other cases ("The
Beatles" vs "The White Album", "Myanmar" vs "Burma" maybe).
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Everyone needs to chill out Lir. Next someone is going to call me Lir. In
fact, maybe I might just claim that I am Lir. Who would know? Maybe I'm not
really Ram-Man.
Ram-Man
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus � Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
You Wrote:
>> That page really doesn't seem conducive to civility either, though,
>> really? Cunctator gets knocked around quite a bit. Decide for
>> yourself if you think he deserves it--and Larry, you don't have to
>> tell me what you think; but really he does. Which hatchet needs
>> burying? Oh, there are two?
>>
>> kq
I just posted in response to Ed, & also just realized why he wrote in defense of
Cunc: sloppy writing in my original post. I wrote:
>>Cunctator gets knocked around quite a bit. Decide for
>> yourself if you think he deserves it--and Larry, you don't have to
>> tell me what you think; but really he does.
What I meant was 'really he does get kicked around quite a bit," not "really he
does deserve it.
kq