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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l