WikiEN-l February 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

57 participants
159 discussions

problem with courtesy titles
by james duffy 10 Feb '03

10 Feb '03

A problem has cropped up over titles, specifically COURTESY TITLES on Wiki. While standard titles relating to peerages can be ignored because there is an alternative (the holder will have a name and surname), courtesy titles (ie, titles possessed by someone related to a peer; son, daughter, wife, etc) are usually treated as PART OF A NAME in common usage, given that they are attached to the name. Which means Wiki's policy of dropping titles like 'Lord', 'Lady' etc is producing unrecognisable names that users find hard to follow. I thought there was just one or two, but others have been pointing out more and more examples. Examples: Lord John Russell (UK PM in the 1840s) is down as JOHN RUSSELL, a name 100% of people studying english history would not recognise. Leaving out the lord bit is the equivalent in terms of recognition of turning 'William Jefferson Clinton' to 'Jefferson Clinton' and then wondering why no-one knows would recognise who is being written about. Lady Jane Grey is down as JANE GREY, again a name never ever used without 'Lady'. Lady Gregory or Lady Augusta Gregory (founder of Dublin's Abbey Theatre) is down as AUGUSTA GREGORY, a rarely used variation on her name. Most history books simply say 'Lady Gregory'. Lady Caroline Lamb is down as CAROLINE LAMB. Lady Diana Spencer was down as DIANA SPENCER. (Someone has changed her name to another variation). The trouble in these cases with simply on an ad hoc basis using the 'lord' or 'lady' is that someone else will come along, say Wiki doesn't use titles, and remove it, leading to edit wars over how Wiki should refer to these and others. Quite a few people at this stage have said they are uncomfortable having to use a version of the name minus the courtesy title that to them makes no sense and makes it more difficult to follow. Even people who in general remove such titles have said the Wiki policy in this area needs to be clarified and made more user-friendly and logical. After a lot of consultation (here and on various pages) we reached a consensus on how to use royal nomenclatures. This is one of the remaining glitches to be worked out. The best solution here might be to say on the naming convention page: OTHER THAN IN THE CASE OF ROYALTY, AVOID USING PEERAGE TITLES (eg, Earl of Ardbraccan) OR HONOURS ('Sir') IN THE TITLES OF ARTICLES. INSTEAD USE THE PERSON'S NAME AND SURNAME. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF COURTESY TITLES (ie, titles attached to a person's name and surname by virtue of they being a son, daughter, wife, etc of a peer) IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO USE THE TITLE WHERE THE IDENTITY OF A PERSON MAY BE UNCLEAR WITHOUT IT. FOR EXAMPLE: Lord John Russell, rather than John Russell Lady Augusta Gregory, rather than Augusta Gregory Lady Jane Grey, rather than Jane Grey Lady Diana Spencer, rather than Diana Spencer IF IN DOUBT, ASK FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ON THE NAMING CONVENTIONS TALK PAGE. Any observations? JT _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

The MIT Vandal is back
by Eugene Gill 09 Feb '03

09 Feb '03

The MIT Vandal is back right now as User:Sumar

1 1

User TMC
by Tony Wilson 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

Quoted from the user:talk page. No additional comment needed. Tokerboy: Your user page is in error. You are still banned until User:Jimbo Wales says otherwise, which will only happen if the mailing list et al support it. Ortolan88: And, never under this name Tannin: Don't trouble to think that there are just one or two weirdos who take this view: I am about to suggest on the list that you be completely deleted (if others have not already done so) - and I will be very surprised if that does not take place. Perhaps others will take a different view, but I am of the opinion that a user with so little consideration for other readers cannot be presumed to have anything useful to contribute, and should not be allowed back under any name or any circumstances.

3 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] (Oklah) SERIOUS HELP NEEDED NOW!
by daniwo59＠aol.com 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

What is going on with Oklah? Is that the same one? Danny

4 3

Re: SERIOUS HELP NEEDED NOW!
by Mirko Thiessen 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

> Message: 9 > From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 01:31:53 -0800 > Cc: wikitech-l(a)wikipedia.org > Subject: [WikiEN-l] SERIOUS HELP NEEDED NOW! > Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > I think it is way past time that admins can view users' IPs. This is > ridiculous! Agreed. If we manage to find out the IP, shouldn't a vandal attack of this extent be reason enough to contact the provider of this idiot? Mirko. -- Mirko Thiessen http://www.mirko-thiessen.de

2 1

Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #123 - 15 msgs
by Jesse Alter 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

Apparently, the issue with Lir is a bit deeper than I thought, and I do side with some of the people offended by her--some of the comments were sharp and a bit 'unladylike' (for the record, I think men and women should both behave 'ladylike' in polite company). But one of the things that really got me was where Zoe said she would leave if Lir was unbanned and 'continued his usual obnoxiousness'. That's not cool. Now you're adding some more emotion to the admin's decisions. Now they must worry if it is worthwhile to add Lir if they'd be losing you, and that's really unfair. The decision should be made based on whether the admins feel it would help Wikipedia, overall. /

6 5

the current spate of vandalism
by daniwo59＠aol.com 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

The vandal seems to be pulling the articles out of somewhere. I suggest disabling the random article finder (the vandalized articles really are random, and that could be where they are taking them from) until this is resolved. Other than that, mav, modemac, and tannin--you are doing a great job. Every time I try to help out, it's already been done. Good work. Danny

1 0

Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #124 - 9 msgs
by Jesse Alter 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

I didn't say that, and I don't think anyone else on the list said that since I've been watching it, which is admittedly, not very long. The Cunctator, I assumed there was more than one admin involved in this process. Thanks for the clarification. Out of curiousity, if Lir was unbanned and told exactly what must be done to be a member in good standing, would it not be all too easy to ban her again if they showed a disregard for those guidelines? <<< Message: 7 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:20:43 -0800 (PST) From: Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #123 - 15 msgs To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org --0-1343483212-1044688843=:49491 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Fine. Goodbye. I'm obviously not wanted here. Zoe >>>

1 0

SERIOUS HELP NEEDED NOW!
by Daniel Mayer 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

There is a very persisant vandal afoot that is jumping accounts and reverting articles to older versions at an alarming rate. I can barely keep up by using the rollback feature. PLEASE somebody with godlike developer powers block this fuck. I've been at this full time for over an hour -- There are many other things I would rather be doing on Wikipedia. A very frustrated mav I think it is way past time that admins can view users' IPs. This is ridiculous! This VANDAL started with user:Annetit and has already created about a dozen other accounts just to stay a step ahead of me rollbacking his edits (since for each new user name on RC I have to review the edits before determining they are vandalism or not -- which is damn difficult because the VANDAL is often reverting to slightly older versions!)

5 5

[[Woman]]
by Zoe 08 Feb '03

08 Feb '03

Someone named Annetit, with the cooperation of someone named AgainstCensure, has decided it necessary to make misogynistic comments in the http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman article, despite several attempts at reversion. Zoe --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

2 1

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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 February 2003