Oliver wrote If the majority of experts on fauna call an animal the "Aardvark", and the majority of non-experts call it the "aardvark", then the majority of our potential *readership* call it the "aardvark". So that's what our usual naming convention says that *we* should call it, too. We shouldn't make special cases just for one particular group of people without a better reason than just because that's how they do it themselves.
The thing is, we are an ENCYCLOPÆDIA. (BTW, I am not shouting. I just can't do italics here!!!) As such we should strive as much as possible for accuracy and that includes accuracy in capitalisation. We can use redirects to deal with commonly understood names/titles/use of capitalisation, etc. But we should as an encyclopædia aim to be an accurate factual source of information, not aim simply to produce commonly understood but inaccurate information. For example, millions of people think Queen Elizabeth II is 'queen of England'. In fact she isn't and couldn't be as England ceased to exist as a separate kingdom in 1707. So we have a redirect page based on the wrong but commonly understood title, but the actual page is on the correctly titled page. So someone coming to the page is able to go away knowing the 'correct' facts, including the correct title, knowing more when they leave than when they came to it.
That is what an encyclopædia is, a source of factual information that educates people looking for information. If the grey-haired longtail buzzard is correctly called the Grey Haired, Longtail Buzzard of Ohio, then a person coming to wiki should be able to find that out and know that leaving wiki. We aren't a tabloid newspaper that can aim for a general low-brow standard. Encyclopædias have to aim to produce the highest standard of educational information. People should come to wiki to get more information than they possess, not simply to reflect the standard they came with. The very fact that they are searching for more information means they are not satisfied they have enough and need more. If wiki gets a reputation for not being accurate, just being there, what is the point of wiki? Accuracy involves such basic facts as correct spelling and correct capitalisation. So Tannin is correct to try to get things as accurate as possible in the area of capitalisation.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
james duffy wrote:
Oliver wrote If the majority of experts on fauna call an animal the "Aardvark", and the majority of non-experts call it the "aardvark", then the majority of our potential *readership* call it the "aardvark". So that's what our usual naming convention says that *we* should call it, too. We shouldn't make special cases just for one particular group of people without a better reason than just because that's how they do it themselves.
The thing is, we are an ENCYCLOPÆDIA. (BTW, I am not shouting. I just can't do italics here!!!)
Right, the convention goes: /italics/ *bold* _underline_
HTH Jimmy
Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
JTDirl wrote:
The thing is, we are an ENCYCLOPÆDIA. (BTW, I am not shouting. I just can't do italics here!!!)
Right, the convention goes: /italics/ *bold* _underline_
And my conventions are: *italics* _bold_ (underline is not used). Since we're all Wikipedians, you can also use ''italics'' '''bold'''. So there are many choices, all ambiguous! ^_^ (Even the convention that caps is shouting is ambiguous.)
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
JTDirl wrote:
The thing is, we are an ENCYCLOPÆDIA. (BTW, I am not shouting. I just can't do italics here!!!)
Right, the convention goes: /italics/ *bold* _underline_
And my conventions are: *italics* _bold_ (underline is not used). Since we're all Wikipedians, you can also use ''italics'' '''bold'''. So there are many choices, all ambiguous! ^_^ (Even the convention that caps is shouting is ambiguous.)
-- Toby
The odd thing is, for Jimbo's conventions, Mozilla actually applies the correct attribute to the text. /italics/ appears in italicized text. I never knew there was a convention for that kind of thing.
james duffy wrote:
The thing is, we are an ENCYCLOPÆDIA. (BTW, I am not shouting. I just can't do italics here!!!) As such we should strive as much as possible for accuracy and that includes accuracy in capitalisation. We can use redirects to deal with commonly understood names/titles/use of capitalisation, etc. But we should as an encyclopædia aim to be an accurate factual source of information, not aim simply to produce commonly understood but inaccurate information. For example, millions of people think Queen Elizabeth II is 'queen of England'. In fact she isn't and couldn't be as England ceased to exist as a separate kingdom in 1707. So we have a redirect page based on the wrong but commonly understood title, but the actual page is on the correctly titled page. So someone coming to the page is able to go away knowing the 'correct' facts, including the correct title, knowing more when they leave than when they came to it.
That is what an encyclopædia is, a source of factual information that educates people looking for information. If the grey-haired longtail buzzard is correctly called the Grey Haired, Longtail Buzzard of Ohio, then a person coming to wiki should be able to find that out and know that leaving wiki. We aren't a tabloid newspaper that can aim for a general low-brow standard. Encyclopædias have to aim to produce the highest standard of educational information. People should come to wiki to get more information than they possess, not simply to reflect the standard they came with. The very fact that they are searching for more information means they are not satisfied they have enough and need more. If wiki gets a reputation for not being accurate, just being there, what is the point of wiki? Accuracy involves such basic facts as correct spelling and correct capitalisation. So Tannin is correct to try to get things as accurate as possible in the area of capitalisation.
These comments start from the very good premise that we should encourage correct facts, but concludes by promoting a particular POV as being the correct one in a particular set of circumstances, capitaliZation of the English names of animal species. It seems to me that that single word "correct" (and its synonyms, of course) is one of the most POV words in the language. Spelling and capitalization are not a part of the basic facts about a species; they are incidental facts; the species itself is blissfully unaware of the debate. In my most generous NPOV moments I regard the situation about capitalizing species names as conflicted and undecided right across the spectrum of people who might be interested in such things. When I'm most irritated by the opposite POV I say that capitals are dead wrong. This issue would progress far more smoothly if the capitalizers would disavow themselves of the illusion that their POV is necessarily correct.
Ec
JTDirl wrote in part:
Oliver wrote:
If the majority of experts on fauna call an animal the "Aardvark", and the majority of non-experts call it the "aardvark", then the majority of our potential *readership* call it the "aardvark". So that's what our usual naming convention says that *we* should call it, too. We shouldn't make special cases just for one particular group of people without a better reason than just because that's how they do it themselves.
The thing is, we are an *encyclopædia*. As such we should strive as much as possible for accuracy and that includes accuracy in capitalisation. [...] So we have a redirect page based on the wrong but commonly understood title, but the actual page is on the correctly titled page. So someone coming to the page is able to go away knowing the 'correct' facts, including the correct title, knowing more when they leave than when they came to it.
It's hardly been established that the downstyle is *wrong*, and we can always explain in the body of the article that many authorities prefer to capitalise (and explain who).
But I didn't come here to argue for downstyle, and I don't claim that these points outweigh JTDirl's. What I really want to do is point out the similarity of the argument to the earlier one over the naming of foreign cities and people. To paraphrase:
Oliver: People expect "Munich", so we should give them that.
JTDirl: But "München" is correct, and an encyclopædia should be correct. We can always redirect from the common but mistaken spelling.
Me (in the first paragraph above): It's not clear that "Munich" is wrong, and the article can always explain that it's "München" in Germany.
Not that this similarity should convince anybody in either case, but I hope that Wikipedians with opinions on both issues take the time to reconcile them in their own minds.
-- Toby