Andrew Gray wrote:
As Sam says below, this is an issue of interpretation of a clear and sensible rule which is, in this case, ambiguous. We had the same over Gdansk/Danzig, over Gasoline/Petrol, over Alumin(i)um, a score of other pages. I have no doubt that a sizable proportion of people on both sides of those disputes knew for a fact that they were right about their preferred usage being vastly more common, and quoted specific searches to prove it.
What we need to do, right, is put up a third alternative so horrible that the warring sides no longer really care which it is as long as it's not that one. No-one could decide whether the flat round things with sound in the grooves should be at "Gramophone record" or "Phonograph record", so someone invented the term [[Analogue disc record]] and put the article there. This sucked so much that even the partisans for one of the standard terms would be happy with the other one.
So the article was put at [[Gramophone record]], with a redirect at [[Phonograph record]] and both prominent in the first sentence. I wonder if something like that could be done here.
[[m:Voting is evil (and stupid)]]
- d.
It occurs to me that these nomenclature problems could be solved at software level by permitting the creation of synonyms, rather than redirects.
There's no reason why there should be two or more separate articles, with people squabbling about which one should be the main article and which the redirect, if both exist and have precisely the same article id. The synonym creation would also have to operate for the corresponding talk namespace.
G'day Tony,
There's no reason why there should be two or more separate articles, with people squabbling about which one should be the main article and which the redirect, if both exist and have precisely the same article id. The synonym creation would also have to operate for the corresponding talk namespace.
Why ... it's so crazy, it's brilliant!
Perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn't organizing articles in this fashion simply push the argument back upon every article that links to the one with the contentious name?
Right now we have a situation in which these debates can be more-or-less solved by knowing what the subject's "Wikipedia article name" is, and informing people to not link through a redirect. If Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoire become equivalent at the backend level, won't the same argument then erupt in the "List of African countries" article, the "List of UN members" article, and the "List of places with Ivory in their name" article?
Jkelly
G'day Tony,
There's no reason why there should be two or more separate articles, with people squabbling about which one should be the main article and which the redirect, if both exist and have precisely the same article id. The synonym creation would also have to operate for the corresponding talk namespace.
Why ... it's so crazy, it's brilliant!
On 11/15/05, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn't organizing articles in this fashion simply push the argument back upon every article that links to the one with the contentious name?
Right now we have a situation in which these debates can be more-or-less solved by knowing what the subject's "Wikipedia article name" is, and informing people to not link through a redirect. If Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoire become equivalent at the backend level, won't the same argument then erupt in the "List of African countries" article, the "List of UN members" article, and the "List of places with Ivory in their name" article?
Purely theoretically (I don't think such a situation will arise), but that could easily be resolved with the use of a solidus. As for which comes first... does anyone *really* care that much? If you do, I think you have your priorities mixed up.
Sam
On 11/15/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Purely theoretically (I don't think such a situation will arise), but that could easily be resolved with the use of a solidus. As for which comes first... does anyone *really* care that much? If you do, I think you have your priorities mixed up.
Sam
See [[WP:LAME]]. People do have thier priorities mixed up and there is nothing you can do about it.
-- geni
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
See [[WP:LAME]]. People do have thier priorities mixed up and there is nothing you can do about it.
I don't disagree.
Sam
On 11/15/05, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Perhaps I am missing something, but wouldn't organizing articles in this fashion simply push the argument back upon every article that links to the one with the contentious name?
Right now we have a situation in which these debates can be more-or-less solved by knowing what the subject's "Wikipedia article name" is, and informing people to not link through a redirect. If Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoire become equivalent at the backend level, won't the same argument then erupt in the "List of African countries" article, the "List of UN members" article, and the "List of places with Ivory in their name" article?
Maybe it's me who's missing something, but isn't that the kind of thing that can be solved by normal editing and dispute resolution?
The only reason we have a debate on this kind of issue is because sometimes moves *cannot* be performed by a normal editor, due to the redirect in the desired target of the move having history.
Moreover the concept of an "official wikipedia name" doesn't exist. It doesn't really matter to Wikipedia what the article is called; if you want to refer to it by another name, use the piped link feature [[Article name|preferred name]].
So all we'd be doing here is providing a facility to give an article a number of different names. Using the redirect method, currently if you type in Ivory Coast you see somethiing like this:
Côte d'Ivoire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Ivory Coast)
The Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (IPA /kot divwa/); commonly called Ivory Coast in English; see below about the name) is a country in West Africa.
With synonyms, you'd see something like the following:
Ivory Coast
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (IPA /kot divwa/); commonly called Ivory Coast in English; see below about the name) is a country in West Africa.
On 11/15/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that these nomenclature problems could be solved at software level by permitting the creation of synonyms, rather than redirects.
Technicaly a new opertunity for vandalism but we can hadle that. Sound like a good idea if it is posible.
-- geni