I still suspect that this was based on a misunderstanding of WP:ATT, based on the Langans article. I'm sure he'll change his view once he realizes that they are unrelated.
Jay.
On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
The merge was popular, smooth, there were no changes to policy, and ATT has quickly become a widely used page, so I'm assuming this was a misunderstanding that will be sorted out soon enough.
I am not so sure, SlimVirgin.
This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation synchronized with one another as well.
-- Jossi
<snip> I take virtually no position on the details of WP:ATT. I think that it probably was a more or less accurate merger of the three separate policies. But merging three separate policies into one, even when that change is not intended to make any actual policy change, is not trivial and in this particular a monumentally bad idea. All over the site are hundreds or thousands of links to these policy pages, and the meaning of referring someone to WP:V versus WP:RS versus WP:NOR are overwhelmingly important to a coherent understanding of the arguments people are making. We must not merge these separate concepts, or we have no means of distinguishing them. Not everything is the same thing.--Jimbo Wales 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) </snip>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l