WikiEN-l January 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

50 participants
145 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Beer
by daniwo59＠aol.com 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

I like beer. Sounds like a great idea! Danny

1 0

Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] we're slashdotted
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

>We're still afloat so far. :) It performed admirably; I was amazed the server stayed up at all. Most can't handle a slashdotting; I'm sure this is testament to LDC's coding skill and your foresight in turning off some of the more demanding processes. I wonder about the server now, though: wikipedia seems to be down; it won't bring up Recent Changes in a new window and the edit window I have open is hung on perpetually "loading." Are we being slashdotted again (more heavily!) or is there some other cause? cheers, kq (circa 6:00 UTC)

4 5

Mailing lists moved from nupedia.com to wikipedia.org, check your address books!
by Brion Vibber 24 Jan '03

24 Jan '03

For those who may not be aware, the Wikipedia mailing list addresses at nupedia.com *no longer work*. They were maintained as forwarding addresses for a while after the lists were moved to the wikipedia.org server, but have been removed recently (see forwarded message below). If you're having trouble sending e-mail to the Wikipedia mailing lists, check the send-to address and if necessary replace nupedia.com with wikipedia.org. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) -----Forwarded Message----- From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> To: wikitech-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] canceling @nupedia.com forward to the @wikipedia.org lists Date: 13 Jan 2003 08:11:36 -0800 I have no opposition to removing these forwards now. People have had enough time to adjust to the new addresses. Giskart wrote: > For several months I recieve on the lists Intliwiki-l and Wikitech-l > spam almost every day. > > see also > http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2002-December/001719.html > > Those spams always come by the old posting adress of the lists, wikitech- > l(a)nupedia.com and intlwiki-l(a)nupedia.com > > Can the forward be removed? > > --

1 0

solving the problem of royal nomenclature
by james duffy 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

Hi Wilkiens, We have a major problem over how to refer to members of a royal family other than monarchs. Different people are using any number of references, structures and names. Do we use (i) surnames or (ii) titles? What happens if a ''personal'' surname is different to a Royal House name? (eg, is the former Austrian Crown Prince Otto Von Hapsburg, Otto von Hapsburg, Otto von Habsburg, or Otto Habsburg-Lothringen? Which is the Royal House name? Which is a surname?) Furthermore, putting in a 'common name' (as presumed by a page writer) is problematic; for example, there is NO such person as 'Charles Windsor', nor 'Anne Windsor' because Windsor is a Royal House name, not their surname; their surnames actually are different. I have spent some time checking out the whole issue, including speaking to the Buckingham Palace press office to get accurate information re-British royals. I put my suggestion on the history standards page and so far it has met with general consensus approval, subject to minor modifications, which I have made. I call it the THREE GENERATION RULE. (1) FIRST GENERATION ROYALS 'Children & siblings of A monarch'' (not just the present monarch!) should be referred to by TITLE where they have one, or 'PRINCE/PRINCESS OF [country]' where they have no formal title, for example; **Charles, Prince of Wales **Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark **Philip (or spanish version), Prince of the Asturias (or Crown Prince of Spain) **Willem Alexander, Crown Prince of the Netherlands **Andrew, Duke of York **Anne, Princess Royal **Victoria, Princess Royal (daughter of Queen Victoria and mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II) **Margaret, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of George VI, sister of Elizabeth II) **Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of Queen Victoria, sister of Edward VII) REASON: such royals are widely known and so recognised almost exclusively by name or title. Using standard names (which some reference books do) won't work on WIki because the vast majority of its users won't have a clue what their standard name is, particularly as their actual surname is frequently different to the Royal Family name. It has already caused problems for some people I know, who decided to go elsewhere for information. (2) SECOND GENERATION ROYALS Those descended from a monarch should be referred to by title if they have one, by Royal House name (eg, Windsor, etc) IN THE ARTICLE TITLE if they don't, unless they have a CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE SURNAME, for example: **Princess Beatrice of York **Princess Eugenie of York **Eloise Sophie Beatrix Laurence, Countess of Orange-Nassau **Zara Phillips **Princess Anne's children have no title, an almost unique situation. They are universally known by their father's surname of Phillips, so a degree of flexibility is required here, but as I say they do SEEM unique. REASON: such royals are less well known but again are known largely by name/title. Using a surname would be confusing as many would have different, largely known surnames. If we use, say, 'Beatrice of the United Kingdom' that could be mixed up with an earlier one of the same name. But we can't say 'Princess of York', as that isn't correct, even though she IS a princess and OF York. Leaving out princess causes another problem; many in the middle ages called themselves, for example, 'John of Gaunt', 'Philip of Chester, 'Maud of Lille' etc. And just using a surname is out because contrary to what some on Wiki think, Windsor isn't her surname and few would recognise her actual double-barrelled surname. The view expressed to me was that you need to clarify her status as a princess and use York to define her. The general view was in such cases, 'Princess Beatrice of York' is name-specific, person-specific and the most correct title, clarifying exactly who she is. And it is workable in all occasions I can think of. (Sons and daughters of royal dukes and earls use their parent's title as part of their own. For example, 'Prince William of Wales', 'Prince Richard of Gloucester', etc.) For example, **Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh (grand-daughter of Queen Victoria) **Princess Victoria of Connaught (grandaughter of Queen Victoria) Such figures are unlikely to feature in Wiki, but if they do, it is worth having a standard structure by which they can be dealt with. (3) Other Minor Royals. The Royal House name should be used, for example: The Earl of Ulster referred to by Royal House (in this case, Windsor) Where a ''minor royal'' is unambiguously identified by a clear surname, that could be used. For example **Viscount Linley as David Linley. By using a Royal House name, we would be using the name most people would associate with a monarchy. In Britain, that would be Windsor, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Belgium. REASON: Such royals are hardly known, and rarely by title. But as they may have a different and almost totally unknown surname, using the Royal House name may be the most straight-forward way Having used title or accurate reference in the ARTICLE TITLE, we may then add in a surname (if we have it, and its not as simple as people think) IN THE OPENING LINE. I've added two definitions onto Wiki that can also be linked in for clarity. ROYAL HOUSE means Royal Family name. So, on a reference to a member of the British Royal Family, after the name in the text, you can simply add ''of the [[Royal House]] of [[Windsor]]'' and someone who isn't sure can check to see what a Royal House is. I've also added definitions for the two British Royal Family names; [[Windsor (Royal House)]] (the Royal House/Royal Family name, which is also the surname of some but but no means all of the family), and [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], the actual surname of Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew and all their children, according to Buckingham Palace. So an entry would go, CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES Charles Philip Arthur George [[Mountbatten-Windsor]], of the [[Royal House]] of [[Windsor]] . . . etc etc So far, there has been general consensus on the idea, subject to minor queries and ideas which I am incorporating. Indeed a number of people have begun renaming articles to conform with this structure. (I've added in the correct surnames to articles on Queen Elizabeth's children). Has anyone any observations or suggestions? I know both Deb and Mav seem reasonably satisfied with the idea. Others have made minor suggestions for adaptions but seem happy with the overall idea. As I said, the current haphazard system isn't working, while just using what people THINK are correct surnames is producing references that most people won't understand and which in many cases are factually incorrect. In the case of royalty, it is easier to be specific using unambiguous titles than surnames, not least when many royals don't actually have them, again contrary to what some think when they take a dubious stab at making them up, as is the case with [[Charles Windsor]]; whomever he is, it most certainly isn't Prince Charles, whose surname is Mountbatten-Windsor according to the Palace. JT. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

2 1

Re: we're slashdotted
by Geoff Burling 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

I noticed the following comment on /., & I think it's fair to say all of us can guess who the poster & the Wikipedian in this piece are. (I'm not that surprised: there are an awful lot of kooks on /. as it is.) Geoff ========================================================== Accurate meaning...? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wed 22 Jan 11:51AM (#5135984) How do you decide what accurate is? There was a subject I wrote about in a number of articles, which some arrogant American woman who had no idea what she was talking about thought was incorrect, and altered all of what I wrote. All others agreed with her, although I know she is wrong. I eventually rewrote the said area in a very indirect and obtuse way which they seemed to not take issue with in their ignorance of the subject. How do you decide what is fact? With sheer force of editing numbers? This ends up with a bias.

4 5

RE: [WikiEN-l] We were interviewed by Wired
by Poor, Edmund W 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

"Desperado, you've got to let somebody love you..." ---- I was in Wired once: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.04/es_lists.html?pg=4 Tom Parmenter

2 1

We were interviewed by Wired
by Poor, Edmund W 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

Folks, Jimbo and I were phone-interviewed about Wikipedia today (separately) by a lady from Wired magazine. I hope to see a nice article coming out soon! Uncle Ed

2 1

RE: [WikiEN-l] solving the problem of royal nomenclature
by Poor, Edmund W 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

James, There being no MAJOR objections to your proposal to alleviate this royal pain in the neck, I add my endorsement: if you will do the work of straightening it all out yourself, then by the principle of "he who works hardest should be the leader" I say your solution ought to be respected. Besides, it makes sense! Uncle Ed -----Original Message----- From: james duffy [mailto:jtdirl@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 8:30 PM To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] solving the problem of royal nomenclature Hi Wilkiens, We have a major problem over how to refer to members of a royal family other than monarchs. Different people are using any number of references, structures and names. [snip details of solution] I know both Deb and Mav seem reasonably satisfied with the idea. Others have made minor suggestions for adaptions but seem happy with the overall idea.

1 0

Re: Things that bother me
by Sheldon Rampton 23 Jan '03

23 Jan '03

Jimmy Wales wrote: >O.k., then we're likely so far apart in political opinions that we'll >have a hard time agreeing on very much. If 90% of a population is >white, and votes in fair and open democratic elections to impose >rights violations ("separate but equal" or worse) on the 10% that is >black, you'd consider that a morally appropriate outcome? I don't >think so, but that's what I mean when I say that majority rule is >morally repugnant. I agree, that would be morally repugnant, but no serious proponent of majority rule advocates that sort of thing. The standard formulation is that the "majority rules, but the minority has rights." The question of how to define the boundary between majority rulership and minority rights has always been difficult to define, but that fundamental problem doesn't get any better if you resort to the only viable alternative to majority rule, which is one-man dictatorship or rule by a minority elite. I'm a little reluctant even to post this comment, because I don't think we want to launch into an open-ended debate here about political worldviews. Suffice it to say that the areas on which I think we all agree are: (1) Violation of the rights of a minority is morally repugnant, even if it takes place under a system of majority rule; and (2) Wikipedia's current informal system of self-governance has worked pretty well thus far. -- -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts --------------------------------

4 3

we're slashdotted
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 22 Jan '03

22 Jan '03

Just a note to give everyone a heads-up: anonymous coward submitted a story about our 100,000 article milestone, and we are now slashdotted. Bucket brigade at the ready. ;-) cheers, kq wikikarma: [[Senegal]] pages.

4 3

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
15
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l January 2003