on 12/12/02 5:35 PM, Daniel Mayer at maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 04:00 am, wikien-l-request@wikipedia.org wrote:
Hold on! Let's not get carried away! This most recent debate affected only a handful of countries with very special problems. For most countries the short form is not problematical, and these articles can carry on just as they are. [[History of the French Republic]] may be a perfectly valid article when [[History of France]] needs to broken into smaller chunks, but it's not an immediate necessity. It would help nobody if we started to develop solutions for problems that don't exist. The problem countries will make themselves obvious when then time comes.
Eclecticology
Just following the new logic. Why should our article on the modern state of Mexico have history in it that doesn't belong to it? The history of the modern state called Mexico really doesn't start until until 1917 when its current constitution was drafted (arguably it may have started when it got its independence from Spain in 1810). So it is only logical that the article on the modern state should be at [[United States of Mexico]] and the main article on Mexican art, culture and history would be at [[Mexico]] (the history would probably start with Cortez since Mexican art and culture is a blending of Mesoamerican and Spanish art and culture).
I really fail to see much of a difference between China, Mexico, France and many other nations in this regard.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I don't want any part of doing China over again. We had it one one then we changed it; going back to the first way... No. Enough!
Fred