I moved the wiki-based discussion to:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_policy_for_slogans
I suggest that someone refactor that page to reflect all the
different proposals that have been made here on the mailing
list, as well as on scattered talk pages.
Then, as we did with the great Country Reorganization
Discussion, I suggest that each Wikipedian indicate their
preferences. This is _similar_ to voting, except you can voice
your approval or disapproval any way you want.
One way that worked well with the country reorganization, was
for people to "sign" their usernames (with three tildes ~~~) by
_each_ proposal they favored.
Ed Poor
There's no hard and fast rule on WHERE a discussion on
WikiPolicy has to be carried on. Indeed, it would hardly
make sense to IGNORE discussion in one realm of the
WikiKingdom simply because one felt the discussion
really ought to be in another realm. (Not naming any
names, or is that another one of those Roman pro-
lipstick rhetorical tricks?)
Zoe, Jtdirl and some others have weighed in on the issue
-- on various talk pages, as well as here on the mailing
list -- and it wouldn't be surprising if any of them
felt irked at having been ignored.
<slang style=surfer>
Dude! Like the whole reason we have this splendid
mailing list thing is, like, so we don't go surfing
alone! There's, like, hazards out there: shoals, sharks,
and sharp rocks, so we all gotta stick together, man!
</slang>
Ed Poor
I found this on a site which has chiropratic information:
Although we at chiro.org do our best to provide you with accurate
information of all sorts, we cannot guarantee that any of it is accurate for
any purpose whatsoever! In fact, if you use this web site, you may receive
nothing but incorrect information. It will be your responsibility to
determine if anything here has any value. By clicking the "I Accept" button,
you are agreeing to not hold chiro.org or any of its members or friends
liable for anything you might find while using this internet site.
You must accept this to use the site.
Fred
Jimmy Wales said:
>A horse! A horse! my kingdom for a horse!
Oh, no hang on, that was Richard III. ;) He actually said:
>(Tim accidentally attributed some remarks to me that were actually
>made by Ed Poor. No big problem, I just note it in case it comes up
>in the future!)
Sorry.
I'm also sorry that I missed Eclecticology's post (Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:40:45
-0800) last time. I will reply to it now:
>I object because it takes these Australian city names as though they were
>the only uses of those names. There was certainly a well-lnown military
>aircraft called the Canberra. Perth is also a significant city in
>Scotland. Sydney, Nova Scotia was at least big enough for an English
>travel agent to mistakenly send a young honeymooning couple there a year or
>two ago.
The decision to implement "primary topic" disambiguation is made all the
time around Wikipedia. Will you also be arguing for [[Cream]] to be moved to
[[Cream (dairy product)]]?
There may a plane called "Canberra", but it's not in Wikipedia at the
moment, so it's obviously not *that* well known. However, if we later
discover "Canberra" has an important meaning other than the city name, we
can move the article at that point. There is no need to pre-emptively
disambiguate since moving an article and changing all references is a
relatively simple task. Preemptive disambiguation has the disadvantage that
it requires people to write [[Canberra, Australia|Canberra]], even though
the chance [[Canberra]] will some day become a disambiguation page rather
than a redirect is fairly small.
I'm not suggesting that all Australian cities should have a simple name. The
decision whether to use primary-topic disambiguation or some other more
neutral form should be made on a case-by-case basis. Perth is a good example
of a page which should probably stay as it is (although the Australian Perth
has 30 times more population than the other two combined).
Now back to Mr Wales (at least I think it was him):
:I think we should do the same thing for all countries, or at least all
:English speaking countries, or for all cities that meet some popular
:recognition threshold, whatever that may be.
I don't think "popular recognition threshold" should enter into the
*preemptive* disambiguation decision. The one horse town Ebor currently has
the simple name, and I think it should stay that way for now. If another
Ebor becomes evident, the town can be moved, but that's no big deal. We
don't preemptively disambiguate albums, books or movies, so why do it for
(non-American) towns and cities?
Also, doing the same thing for all countries would mean using [[City,
State]] convention, i.e. [[Canberra, Australian Capital Territory]] or
[[Perth, Western Australia]]. I don't think anyone wants that.
Preemptive disambiguation is necessary for American towns and cities because
the chance of a name being ambiguous is very much higher. Also, even
contributors naive in the ways of the 'pedia have a fair chance of typing
[[City, State]] because that's the way it's usually done.
I think my position and Mav's are basically identical. He said:
]Summary: In general there is no special naming convention for cities but
when
]there is a reasonable ambiguity then and /only/ then do we add additional
]distinguishing information to the title.
]The only exceptions are the United States and Canada where nearly every
city
]name is used multiple times within their respective borders /and/ many
others
]are shared between them (there are several Richmonds in Canada and a couple
]dozen in the United States, for example). So cities in these nations are to
]be pre-emptively disambiguated because city naming in the United States and
]Canada is /so/ ambiguous /and/ these cites are very often expressed in the
][city/plane name, state/province] format ("Richmond, California" or
]"Richmond, Ontario").
How does this "payment for post" thing work? Can I use my 983 edits to date
as a kind of bank? ;)
-- Tim Starling
_________________________________________________________________
Message: 8 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:53:19 -0800
(PST)
From: Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1
#236 - 14 msgs
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
The UN inspectors were closely followed by Iraqi
handlers. The American trooops have none, and also
have the cooperation of the locals, which the
inspectors did not, because the locals were afraid of
Hussein's backlash.
Zoe
Hi Zoe,
I have no intention to discuss the validity of the
claims of anybody. This is not the goal of wikipedia.
We must exclude from articles any judgement of value
for any party involved.
Just report what each party thinks and does, and why
it thinks and does that way.
That's why I consider Ed initial question as perfectly
reasonable, and I believe the "probably not" would not
be a good idea to put in an article, as it involves a
value judgement, and a legal position that is
considered differently by each country.
It is very difficult to report what a party thinks and
does, and why, when you don't understand its language.
I think there is here a very difficult issue for those
who are used to "double check" opinions and facts
reported in articles by just googling them. Because,
this is typically a "checking" method which can't be
really valid here, as facts and opinions will maybe
not be checkable in english.
It might require an extensive use of "alleged" and of
"not confirmed" for a while, rather than rejection for
the reason that it can not be double-checked in
english on google.
Yours
Athypique
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 04:00 am, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Zoe wrote:
> > At the risk of being accused of blasphemy, this hagiography of Rachel
> > Corrie has gone on long enough. Since we've had the discussion of
> > moving the victims of 9/11 to Meta, could we do the same thing with
> > the Rachel Corrie iconography and worship pages?
> >
> > Zoe
>
> Although I very much support the inclusion of the [[Rachel Corrie]] page
> as properly encyclopedic, I see no value in continuing the images page,
> which adds nothing to the subject. The biographical page does include a
> few statements (like her love of gardening) that have nothing to do with
> her claim to fame, and therefore go beyond encyclopedia material, I
> would be content to let those details stay for the next few months.
>
> Eclecticology
Just because she isn't famous for her gardening doesn't mean we should exclude
that fact. [[Rachel Corrie]] is supposed to be an /encyclopedia/ article
/not/ a news report about her only claim to fame.
Our other bios are filled with information about famous people before they
became famous - [[Rachel Corrie]] should be no different. But, of course, we
should only have information in that article (or for any article for that
matter) that can be referenced and attributed to reputable - or at least
well-known - sources. We also shouldn't have an article on her just for her
gardening. But since we have an article on her we might as well report on as
much of her life that we can without violating NPOV or 'we are an
encyclopedia' policies.
The images and especially the image gallery are excessive and should go,
however. Aside: I've been meaning to send a post about how some people are
adding POV to articles by stuffing them with one-sided images that evoke
certain emotions (thinking of the [[Kosovo War]] article here). But I leave
that for a future post.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 19]]
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 10:22 am, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>...
>I have no desire to take a side on this issue, except
> (as mentioned above) I will side with whatever Mav wants.
>
> Ed Poor
Well my personal opinion on this has changed a bit but we did vote on the
issue. The results are below:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(city_names…
Summary: In general there is no special naming convention for cities but when
there is a reasonable ambiguity then and /only/ then do we add additional
distinguishing information to the title.
The only exceptions are the United States and Canada where nearly every city
name is used multiple times within their respective borders /and/ many others
are shared between them (there are several Richmonds in Canada and a couple
dozen in the United States, for example). So cities in these nations are to
be pre-emptively disambiguated because city naming in the United States and
Canada is /so/ ambiguous /and/ these cites are very often expressed in the
[city/plane name, state/province] format ("Richmond, California" or
"Richmond, Ontario").
Another thing that was voted on was the method for disambiguating
non-US/Canadian cities when it is needed. I voted for the method that won;
the comma convention. I now think this is a very bad choice because the comma
convention is only widely used in the US and English-speaking Canada (and to
a less extent in other English speaking countries) for disambiguating cities.
Many other countries place the nation/sub-national entity in parenthesis and
some, especially in continental Europe, use river names.
This is something that IMO we should discuss some more. But tentatively I
would suggest that ambiguous city names outside the US and Canada should
follow normal disambiguation. That is; if there is an unambiguous alternative
name that is often used by English speakers, then we should use that
('Frankfurt (Oder)' for the Frankfurt on the Oder river in the state of
Brandenburg - not to be confused with the more famous Frankfurt on the Main
river - , for example). But if there is no natural disambigutor then we
should use more standard parenthetical disambiguation (Cologne (Germany), -
not to be confused with the perfume for men, for example).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 18]]
Right. I, Ed Poor, had said:
>This has been discussed before, at length, and the most passionate and
>devoted contributor on the topic has been maveric. I will go along with any
>naming convention he devises (i.e., he has my "proxy vote").
(Or, as Jimbo so ably paraphrased it, "Whatever Mav wants is fine with me.")
I even recognized that quote as coming from me -- but I didn't notice at the time that Tim seemed to be attributing it (albeit accidentally, I'm sure) as an "ibid" citation from Jimbo.
Ah, well, we think so alike nowadays -- the brainwashing has fully taken hold, no? -- soon my takeover will be complete and I will rule Wikipedia with an iron hand, buwah ha ha ha!
Ed Poor
= > Please don't be a "pain in the neck" because then I'll have to choose
= > between a chiropractor, an osteopath, or a regular doctor, for relief
=
= You might consider garlic -- it's good for the heart, particularly when
= served with a nice stake.
You guys are really putting the bite on me tonight: stick to it, I appreciate the vamping. --Ed