New subject: Naming conventions - use of the word Slogan to qualify a title

26 Mar 2003

The Cunctator has begun renaming the articles on slogans to remove the form 
[[Slogan: . . . ]] which had been used by general agreement. However he 
argued that no compromise was likely therefore he went and began renaming 
everything unilaterally. So we need to find some sort of agreement rather 
than have  The Cunctator unilaterally deciding wiki policy. Otherwise we 
will have endless endless renaming wars.

I propose we use the form [[Slogan: . . . ]] rather than the alternative [[ 
. . . (slogan)]].

1. Some people complained about how we don't say [[Book: . . . ]] or [[Film: 
. . . ]] and that therefore putting in slogan was wrong. I disagree. A 
slogan is by definition POV. Used without qualification, particularly if the 
slogan is politically controversial, rascist, homophobic, or derogatory to 
some people's religious, ethnic of cultural origins, can cause offence or 
appear to be endorsing the POV in the slogan. The use of the word slogan in 
the title is necessary to distance wiki from the slogan message as it would 
appear on the list or on google. Doing that would NPOV it by drawing 
attention to the fact that we are merely repeating a slogan, not expressing 
one.

2. Putting it in brackets at the end of the line could cause problems if a 
slogan is long, for the '(slogan)' might not appear on goggle, if the end of 
a long line was cut off. Instead people simply see a POV slogan coming from 
wikipedia.

3. Putting '(slogan)' at the end means that people would be greeted with a 
potentially POV slogan, with which they might have a strong positive or 
negative reaction - prior to reaching the end of the line (if they see it at 
all) where it is neutralised by the word slogan. Putting the word slogan in 
first means that before they even read the slogan they know it is a slogan 
and is featuring on wiki as a slogan, not POV propaganda. The very first 
word people read in an article title is the first word. Not everyone reads 
the full title, particularly if it is a long title. So the key NPOVing word 
'slogan' should be where everyone can will and can see it, at the first.

4. Grammatically, having it at the front of the line makes more sense. For 
example, [[Slogan: AIDS Kills Fags Dead]] in effect reads, 'the slogan: AIDS 
Kills Fags Dead'. Putting it at the end effectively reads 'AIDS Kills Fags 
Dead - which is a slogan' As I said above, people may have a very strong 
reaction to that particular slogan. Using the 'slogan' word upfront NPOVs 
the statement by contextualising it as a slogan, not an expression of a POV. 
Put at the end, people may well have had an emotional POV reaction (for or 
against) before they reach the word slogan at the end, if they even notice 
it.

5. Using both forms (as The Cunctator seems to want) seems unnecessarily 
complicated. It makes logical sense to use one standard template, not two 
because using two (with [[Slogan: . . .]] being used for controversial 
slogans poses the question:  who decides if a slogan is controversial 
enough? Some people might see a slogan as sufficiently NPOV enough to use 
'(slogan)' at the end. Others might disagree and the result would be an 
edit/renaming war. Having one template means that no-one has to form a value 
judgment on whether it is or is not controversial. If it is a slogan, the 
one universal format is used.

We do need to have some sort of consensus agreement on this issue set out 
clearly. The Cunctator has already annoyed people involved in the debate by 
his unilateral action. It would help the situation enormously if we had 
clear agreement on the form, which could then be entered as a naming 
convention to which people could refer, rather than producing constant rows 
over slogans today, tomorrow, next month, six months down the line, etc.

Any opinions?

JT

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail