Vicki, I stand corrected -- unless I can get a seat on
the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), in which case I "sit
corrected".
Perhaps it is more common among residents of Queens,
Nassau and Suffolk to hear Manhattan referred to as "New
York". On the LIRR, conductors making announcements in
Jamaica, Queens use "New York" to mean Manhattan, as
opposed to Brooklyn. I hear people in Queens and Long
Island say "New York" as often as "the City" to indicate
Manhattan, especially when talking about where they work
or where they're going for an evening's entertainment.
Context is everything.
Ed Poor
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
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
At 09:11 AM 3/25/03 -0500, Ed Poor wrote:
>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").
>
>The point of the naming convention has always been to
>make the article title:
>
>* unambiguous, and
>* as short as possible
>
>These two values compete somewhat, and there are always
>thorny special cases. Is [[Paris]] enough to indicate
>that big city in France? Does [[New York]] mean New York
>State or New York City? -- not to mention (although I
>just did; hi, cunctator!) that WITHIN New York City
>"New York" generally means Manhattan!
No. Within New York City "New York" means either the city
or the state, depending on context--but "the city" means the
part of Manhattan where most of the businesses and tourist
stuff are. Someone taking the bus down from the Bronx to
visit me, or the nearby hospital, or the Cloisters, wouldn't say
they were going into "the city".
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of
Wikipedia conventions.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
Recently, US judges have ruled against creaters of satire on many occasions.
I wouldn't trust it, or fair use for that matter. We're better off
assuming fair use doesn't apply.
>I'm not particularly well-informed on this matter, but I vaguely
>suspect exceptions for parody and fair use are the most likely
>to be a problem.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
I give up.
NOTHING seems to dissuade RK from relentlessly imposing his own
partisan POV on the "Chiropractic medicine" entry. I haven't seen
unreasonable and persistent bias on this scale from a regular Wikipedia
contributor since Clutch was banned.
Something has to be done about it.
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)
list(a)redhill.net.au
A user named "Wanli" has, afer making some contributions that look OK,
started to create dozens of new articles all consisting of the text
"Goolge keywords: Canada America cooperation" (or something like that).
I asked him to stop that and removed these articles. He started
recreating them and told me on my talk page to "stop deleting valuable
encyclopedia content".
I then blocked his user account, but he created a "Wanli2" user and asks
to resurrect the "Wanli" account.
Does anyone know Wanli? Can anyone reason with him/her?
Just in case: Brion, how do I block the IP of a logged-in user (never
did that before)?
Please assist,
Magnus
Mav's informed me that I should write to the list before making a naming
convention "official", so here I am. The convention in question is
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_(pieces_of_mus…
and concerns how to name articles about pieces of classical music. The
convention as it stands has been forming in my brain for the past few
months, and I'm pretty sure it's the best way to go.
Discussion can be had on the convention talk page - I'd rather we didn't
clog up the list with talk of something so specific.
To be clear: I'm not just making this convention for the sake of it or
because I get a kick out of inventing new rules. I honestly think that it's
a useful convention, because there are literally dozens of feasible titles
one could give an article on, say, the Beethoven violin concerto, and
unless some sort of standard is set we could have links pointing to any
number of different titles (I think [[Violin Concerto (Beethoven)]] is best
in this case, for reasons laid out on the convention talk page).
LP (Camembert)
WikiKarma: [[Concerto for Orchestra (Bartók)]]
brion vibber wrote:
>Don't we already?
>
>Aha! It's been deceptively renamed, so the link
>appears as the text "Historical anniversaries", which
>is followed by a list of links to things that didn't
>necessarily happen on that day. This isn't very good
>design.
>
>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Agreed - that was a hack. I've made some changes to the [[Main Page]] that
make things a bit more clear:
'''[[List of historical anniversaries|Historical anniversaries]]''':
[[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]] - [[Event]] - ...
See
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Notice the date link is no longer hidden but is now just the first article in
the Historical anniversaries list. This works for the list since the newest
items for that list are always placed right next to the Historical
anniversaries subhead and it is rare that any historical event gets listed
until /after/ the day on which the event occurred has passed (sorry, but Zoe
and I are always at least a day behind on de-stubifying the day pages).
BTW these events are only listed on the Main Page for an average of 4 days -
sometimes less. In comparison some "Recent deaths" stay listed for nearly a
month and "Current events" usually has a link or two that is two or more
weeks old (not that anything is wrong with that - there is only so much to
report on). Needless to say there is a lot more past history to cover than
current history (thank goodness!).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
I added more events to [[March 22]], checked and fixed all events for
accuracy, updated all the year pages and many of the other articles linked
from that page. I then added a few historical anniversary events to the Main
Page.
Maybe on the front page (or the side bar) we should have a link for the date
(ie today in history). For example, today would be [[23 March]] [[2003]].
Or it could be a Special page updated automatically (Special:History,
Special:Today?)
It would look like this:
{23 March text}
----
{2003 text}
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail