-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
We're working on an update to the Wikipedia logo, which can be used in 3-D, which will be correcting all the incorrect glyphs, and include many other scripts that are not presently in the logo.
The project page is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/Logo and we're still looking for community members to discuss, to help sort out characters, font styles and representations for the additional alphabets as well as continue discussing the current glyphs on the talk page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/Logo.
Your input is greatly appreciated!
Cary
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- We're working on an update to the Wikipedia logo, which can be used in 3-D, which will be correcting all the incorrect glyphs, and include many other scripts that are not presently in the logo.
The project page is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/Logo and we're still looking for community members to discuss, to help sort out characters, font styles and representations for the additional alphabets as well as continue discussing the current glyphs on the talk page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/Logo.
[snip]
It appears that virtually all the discussion is debate over character inclusions. Is there anything needed from people who are happy to let someone else worry about character selection?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- We're working on an update to the Wikipedia logo, which can be used in 3-D, which will be correcting all the incorrect glyphs, and include many other scripts that are not presently in the logo.
The project page is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/Logo and we're still looking for community members to discuss, to help sort out characters, font styles and representations for the additional alphabets as well as continue discussing the current glyphs on the talk page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/Logo.
[snip]
It appears that virtually all the discussion is debate over character inclusions. Is there anything needed from people who are happy to let someone else worry about character selection?
Nope! Sorry to make you muddle through all that! :)
Cary
What is the proper way to handle a disambiguation that shouldn't be a disambiguation?
Wikipedia lists an entry for Kingdom of God. Then there is a separate listing for Kingdom of Heaven. The listing for Kingdom of Heaven is listed as a disambiguation page for Kingdom of God. Unfortunately, much Baptist theology holds that these are two distinct things and not a disambiguation.
What is the proper way to correct this. I made a crude attempt on the existing disambiguation page. Let me know if that is a satisfactory method. I'm not completely happy with it because it implies acknowledgement as a disambiguation where, from our perspective none exists. Had the page not already existed, it would never be explained this way. There would simply be a note indicating that the terms are considered synonymous in some theologies and not in others.
Please let me know what the accepted practice is.
---Mike
2008/11/17 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil:
What is the proper way to handle a disambiguation that shouldn't be a disambiguation?
Wikipedia lists an entry for Kingdom of God. Then there is a separate listing for Kingdom of Heaven. The listing for Kingdom of Heaven is listed as a disambiguation page for Kingdom of God. Unfortunately, much Baptist theology holds that these are two distinct things and not a disambiguation.
What is the proper way to correct this. I made a crude attempt on the existing disambiguation page. Let me know if that is a satisfactory method. I'm not completely happy with it because it implies acknowledgement as a disambiguation where, from our perspective none exists. Had the page not already existed, it would never be explained this way. There would simply be a note indicating that the terms are considered synonymous in some theologies and not in others.
Please let me know what the accepted practice is.
It should be a disambiguation page, the term "Kingdom of Heaven" has multiple meanings, one of those is "Kingdom of God". If there is another meaning in Baptist theology, then create an article, "Kingdom of Heaven (Baptist)" and link to it from the disambig page. You could then change the "Kingdom of Heaven" page to the disambig page, rather than the redirect to "Kingdom of God" that it is now (slap a speedy delete template on the redirect and once it's deleted, move the disambig to that name) - I doubt anyone would object.
That sounds reasonable
Michael P. Deslippe DCMA Customer Liaison - DFAS DCMA-AQCF ( (614) 693-5757 ( DSN: 869-5757 Fax: (216) 367-3357 * Michael.Deslippe@dfas.mil DCMA Customers, please comment on my support or services at: https://pubapp.dcma.mil/CustSat/main.jsp DCMA Employees comment on my support or services at: http://webapps.dcma.mil/dcmasurvey/
"The greatest part of our happiness depends on our dispositions, not our circumstances." -- Martha Washington (1731 - 1802)
What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:22 AM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Disambiguation
2008/11/17 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS MICHAEL.DESLIPPE@dfas.mil:
What is the proper way to handle a disambiguation that shouldn't be a disambiguation?
Wikipedia lists an entry for Kingdom of God. Then there is a separate listing for Kingdom of Heaven. The listing for Kingdom of Heaven is listed as a disambiguation page for Kingdom of God. Unfortunately,
much
Baptist theology holds that these are two distinct things and not a disambiguation.
What is the proper way to correct this. I made a crude attempt on the existing disambiguation page. Let me know if that is a satisfactory method. I'm not completely happy with it because it implies acknowledgement as a disambiguation where, from our perspective none exists. Had the page not already existed, it would never be explained this way. There would simply be a note indicating that the terms are considered synonymous in some theologies and not in others.
Please let me know what the accepted practice is.
It should be a disambiguation page, the term "Kingdom of Heaven" has multiple meanings, one of those is "Kingdom of God". If there is another meaning in Baptist theology, then create an article, "Kingdom of Heaven (Baptist)" and link to it from the disambig page. You could then change the "Kingdom of Heaven" page to the disambig page, rather than the redirect to "Kingdom of God" that it is now (slap a speedy delete template on the redirect and once it's deleted, move the disambig to that name) - I doubt anyone would object.
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org