On 2/1/07, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
These people feel they're completely in the right because they have a
discussion to link to -- a discussion that took place on the WikiProject
page. Since such a discussion cannot override a general rule such as the
Naming Convention, how do I properly respond to this without causing an
edit war (or move war)?
Tell them that you're pleased some Wikipedians actually managed to get
together and agree on something.
Tell them that you've thought again about what they're doing, and have
decided that since they're not agreeing to include original research,
nor are they agreeing that it's ok for their articles to be
unverifiable, nor are they agreeing that it's ok if they don't worry
about NPOV, that it's really no big deal that they are agreeing about
some absolutely trivial matter (even though it might be, in some
people's opinions, not within the strict letter of a mere naming
convention).
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
I don't agree with you Stephen. The naming convention was created to avoid
overly convoluted names. The places articles are located should be easy to
link to.
We don't append "(US president)" to every president either. Because it's
a
pointless exercise. It doesn't achieve anything other than a lot of
unneccesary work.
To overwrite a basic policy like that, you need much wider discussion
anyway.
Mgm