Hi everybody,
I dunno about you all, but I am getting overly confused between all the different points discussed at the same time, url adresses, contents of a page we have not agreed to exist, common recentchanges, common servers or not, auto-redirection or not, cookies or not, common meta ...
It's nice that so many ideas are proposed, but it's really getting confusing. Maybe even more to non-english speaking, and certainly for those not following all lists thoroughly.
Another thing adding to the confusion is that *mailing list(s) matter*. I think that could be a point to start with, and one on which we could maybe easily agree on, which would be nice for a change.
I already stated a couple of time, there was a problem with the definition of the mainlist and the interlist.
1)The main list is both used for internal english matters AND integrated wikipedia matters
2 The inter list was initially set up to take care of matters dealing with creating and organising inter wiki
A side effect of 1) is that some en.wiki editors tend to generalize typical english matters to the rest of the wikipedias.
A side effect of 1) is that all inter that want to be involved in the decision process have to register the main list. Thus making the inter list useless.
A side effect of 2) is that new inter comers tend to believe they can post messages to the inter list, and trust the information there is complete. Both points being clearly untrue (especially since we sometimes forget to double post, on one, or on the other list)
Other side effects are multiple cross posting between the two lists, implying - additional posting time (specially when we forget the cc) - additional reading time to check the message is the same - additional time for deletion - cluttering of the mail box - incomplete information for those who are not registered at *both* lists
My belief is that we need to set up that issue. Ideally, I think there should be:
1) A "main" list, dealing with integrated issues (I don't know the best word to say that, I don't want to mean integration, I want to say issues important to the enlarged community)
2) Plenty of language-specific lists, among which the english list, to deal with naming conventions and majuscule/minuscule typo conventions. Lists only to be set up if there is a need and a demand of course.
In concrete terms, for example
Option1: either a new list (a "metalist") is created, and the mainlist deals with english matters (the inconvenience of that option will be that most people would continue nevertheless to post everything at the main list)
Option2: the interlist really becomes the integrated list and the mainlist stays only for en.issues (that option could maybe be accompanied by an automatic registering process for english not yet on the interlist; but again, I fear lazyness will prevent this process, and posting will stay on the main list anyway; also, this might become a diplomatic issue to some)
Option3: the main list becomes the main list (metalist), and a new en.list is created for english issues (is that possible that all users of the main list are automatically registered to that en.list, and an automatic message send for easy unsuscribing for those not interested to stay on it? it would make the switching process less labourious...)
The 3rd process could be nearly transparent for english users, as most of the time, people reply to messages, so it won't change habits much. They will be registered to two lists, but ain't that the case of many already ?
This option would help avoiding cross posting and information loss. It would save time. It would avoid mailbox cluttering. It will also make clearer that setting up an integrated encyclopedia is a one of the goals; not helping side projects to develop.
A conceptual point is also bothering me, but I admit I have no idea to prevent that right now.
That is the word "international" to be opposed to the english-speaking_main_wikipedia. It is just the same than the words "importation" and "exportation"; just depends on your own position. International has a smell of countries. While english versus non-english just have a smell of language. I like that option better.
Just my thoughts. Sorry if it was too long and laborious task to read. But I think it important that somehow, one day, this mailing list issues are dealt with.
Anthere
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com
in something that perhaps proves anthere’s point…
there’s no stated preference for American or British spelling in wikipedia English, as far as I can tell, and I’ve been looking.
Is this true? I don’t mean to start a debate that’s been done…just looking for an answer.
The UN, or at least the WHO, uses a sort of hybrid. Just looking for comments. what about it in names? (for example, UN programmes are…well, programmes).
in any case, thanks for creating wikipedia. it’s a great project, and one I ’m enjoying participating in. the bickering on this listhost is a testament to the commitments you all make to it.
.nick tarasen (user:nwt)
ps – The academie francaise is one of the best examples of something where one throws up one’s hands and says, “that’s the French for you.” That said, despite all of the rules, it seems that the formal American English rules are a lot easier to follow for a good majority of the population. Museum placards explaining paintings in the US almost never have grammatical errors, because there’s no agreements to be made. The same cannot be said for their francophone counterparts. There’s just so much more to think about grammatically…it’s on one hand impressive and boggling, on the other just puzzling that such a language has existed for so long.
"Nick Tarasen" nwt@uchicago.edu writes:
there's no stated preference for American or British spelling in wikipedia English, as far as I can tell, and I've been looking.
That is correct.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:07:39AM -0500, Nick Tarasen wrote:
there?s no stated preference for American or British spelling in wikipedia English, as far as I can tell, and I?ve been looking.
I don't remember where it says, but iirc the policy is "Either is fine; try to stick to one or the other within an article; try to use the most appropriate dialect - eg, in a page about the UK use British, in a page about the US use American"
|From: "Nick Tarasen" nwt@uchicago.edu | |in something that perhaps proves anthere's point. | |there's no stated preference for American or British spelling in wikipedia |English, as far as I can tell, and I've been looking. | |Is this true? I don't mean to start a debate that's been done. just looking |for an answer. | |The UN, or at least the WHO, uses a sort of hybrid. Just looking for |comments. what about it in names? (for example, UN programmes are, well, |programmes). | |in any case, thanks for creating wikipedia. it's a great project, |and one |I'm enjoying participating in. the bickering on this listhost is a testament |to the commitments you all make to it. | |.nick tarasen (user:nwt) |
Actually, there is a stated *non-preference* in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]:
Spelling Style
For the English Wikipedia, either American or English spelling is acceptable.
It is in no way a requirement, but it probably reads better to use American spellings in articles on American subjects and English spelling in articles on English subjects. A reference to "the American ''labour'' movement" (with a U) or to "''Anglicization''" (with a Z) may be jarring. It also may be jarring to find both forms in a single article. If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate "the other language", as with [[Aeroplane]] and [[Airplane]].
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org