From: Tom Cadden [mailto:thomcadden@yahoo.ie]
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the MoS does not say 'do what Brittanica does' Brittanica is a business-orientated hardcopy encyclopædia which follows governmental usage to avoid offending native populations because it needs them to buy their product. It is called sometimes 'Strategic Naming'.
They follow their own MoS. We follow ours. Ours is not business based but based exclusively on the most common name principle. Objective evidence shows that the most common name of that state, as evidenced by surveys of communication vehicles worldwide, is 'Ivory Coast' by a ratio of 85:15 over Cote d'Ivoire.
They have to follow their MoS which follows 'Strategic Naming'. We have to follow ours, which follows 'Most Common Name'. Under our MoS the name we are obliged to place the name at is Ivory Coast. Their MoS, following their criteria, produces a result that is irrelevant to us.
I don't actually care about this particular "country name", as much as I care about the larger issue. If we allow people to go against policy, and then require a majority vote (or supermajority vote) to choose to FOLLOW policy, then Wikipedia will quickly be over-run by abusers.
The article should be put at the policy-determined place (which happens to be "Ivory Coast") and then - IF a consensus developes that this particular country article should be an exception to policy, THEN move it to the French name.
The idea that article names should be dictated to us, by whoever the article happens to be about is NOT GOOD POLICY. It will only lead to balkanization of the 'pedia. We picked "most common usage English" specifically to head off this sort of thing.
Ed Poor
On 11/17/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
The article should be put at the policy-determined place (which happens to be "Ivory Coast")
In your opinion. ;=)
Sam
On 11/17/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/17/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
The article should be put at the policy-determined place (which happens to be "Ivory Coast")
In your opinion. ;=)
Sam
No really. Any halfway objective examination of the evidence shows that "ivory coast" is used more widly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of the evidence or acting illogicaly .
-- geni
On 11/17/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No really. Any halfway objective examination of the evidence shows that "ivory coast" is used more widly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of the evidence or acting illogicaly .
/me abandons his attempt to bring humour to the situation
Sam
Ed Poor wrote
If we allow people to go against policy, and then require a majority vote (or supermajority vote) to choose to FOLLOW policy, then Wikipedia will quickly be over-run by abusers.
And the sky is falling ... No panic language, please. Ed, you seem to be largely responsible for this farrago.
The article should be put at the policy-determined place (which happens to be "Ivory Coast") and then - IF a consensus developes that this particular country article should be an exception to policy, THEN move it to the French name.
No. The idea that policy here should allow a 'populist' over-ride of the actual name of a nation is just stupid, with respect to the good name of Wikipedia, actually.
The idea that article names should be dictated to us, by whoever the article happens to be about is NOT GOOD POLICY. It will only lead to balkanization of the 'pedia. We picked "most common usage English" specifically to head off this sort of thing.
There you go, Ed. If you can't take francophones as part of 'us', that's your problem. I could think only of two other examples, Saint-Pierre et/and Miquelon, which has gone with 'and', and Reunion, which has compromised as Réunion, where the French is 'La Réunion'. There is really no precedent to be drawn here.
Charles
On 11/17/05, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
There you go, Ed. If you can't take francophones as part of 'us', that's your problem. I could think only of two other examples, Saint-Pierre et/and Miquelon, which has gone with 'and', and Reunion, which has compromised as Réunion, where the French is 'La Réunion'. There is really no precedent to be drawn here.
Charles
Francophones are not a signifact part of the english speaking community
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 11/17/05, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
There you go, Ed. If you can't take francophones as part of 'us', that's your problem. I could think only of two other examples, Saint-Pierre et/and Miquelon, which has gone with 'and', and Reunion, which has compromised as Réunion, where the French is 'La Réunion'. There is really no precedent to be drawn here.
Charles
Francophones are not a signifact part of the english speaking community
What does that have to do with it?
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Francophones are not a signifact part of the english speaking community
What does that have to do with it?
Ec That is patiently obvious. French language usage does not impact on English users. If something is being targeted at English language users then the concerns of French speakers are irrelevant, as are the concerns of English language speakers when writing in French for French language speakers.
--------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
Tom Cadden wrote:
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Francophones are not a signifact part of the english speaking community
What does that have to do with it?
That is patiently obvious.
So now the resolution of the issue depends on who has the greatest patience.
French language usage does not impact on English users. If something is being targeted at English language users then the concerns of French speakers are irrelevant, as are the concerns of English language speakers when writing in French for French language speakers.
In a bilingual country each has an influence on the other.
Ec
On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So now the resolution of the issue depends on who has the greatest patience.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_win_an_argument
I feel I have fallen into a number of these traps myself.
-- Sam