On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#.5B.5BTemplate... Mark Williamson supports a hoax called "Zlatiborian language". If the intention is that English Wikipedia becomes the irrelevant place for Balkan languages and dialects, I can help, too. I started to make user language templates for all regions from Serbia. When I finish it, I would start to make the same for the regions of USA.
Milos Rancic wrote:
On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#.5B.5BTemplate... Mark Williamson supports a hoax called "Zlatiborian language". If the intention is that English Wikipedia becomes the irrelevant place for Balkan languages and dialects, I can help, too. I started to make user language templates for all regions from Serbia. When I finish it, I would start to make the same for the regions of USA.
I would suggest that consideration of Zlatiborian be deferred until all differences between Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian have been resolved. ;-)
Ec
Miloš,
What I support is not a "hoax", but rather the right to determine one's own sociolinguistic and sociocultural identity.
In the past, it would have been possible for many people to change their cultural identity than it is now, and in many cases they would be accepted by the community they sought to join.
If somebody decided that they were part of an ethnic group that previously didn't exist (like if I suddenly decided today I were a Glapolgaptoringian), in some parts of the world what they said would be taken at face value.
If somebody wants to say that their mother tongue is called Zlatiborian, we should let them.
Again somebody makes the daft mistake of bringing the US into this. When I speak of self-determination for indigenous people or independence for regions in other corners of the earth, people often say something like "Well, why don't you support Texas independence then?" and the most simple answer to that is that I do to the extent that Texans themselves support it. I am not a hypocrit(e).
So, if somebody wants to make a language template for Newyorkish, Californic, Texan, Cascadian, or Lasvegish, I will not be like you and say "This is a rediculous hoax! You speak English!" but instead "While I personally wouldn't consider those to be languages, to each his own. If you want to say you speak that 'language', I will support you in that".
So, I will support the existence of the Zlatiborian language template, so long as it is in use on at least one userpage.
Mark
On 20/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#.5B.5BTemplate... Mark Williamson supports a hoax called "Zlatiborian language". If the intention is that English Wikipedia becomes the irrelevant place for Balkan languages and dialects, I can help, too. I started to make user language templates for all regions from Serbia. When I finish it, I would start to make the same for the regions of USA. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
I feel I should also make it clear that just because I support the right of these people to claim that they speak these "languages", I most certainly do not support the creation of wikis in these languages.
So while I support the right of people to claim they speak Montenegrin, I think a Montenegrin WP would only exacerbate the current Balkan linguistic dilemma.
Mark
Re: creation of other language WP's as far as I am concerned if somebody want to take the trouble why should anyone object?
If someone wants to create one in Klingon, Ancient Greek or Aramaic let them get on with it. If you don't know the language or object for political reasons then stick to other language WP's.
Gibraltarian
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Hi,
What do you think of a Yanito WP?
Mark
On 21/10/05, A Gibraltarian a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com wrote:
Re: creation of other language WP's as far as I am concerned if somebody want to take the trouble why should anyone object?
If someone wants to create one in Klingon, Ancient Greek or Aramaic let them get on with it. If you don't know the language or object for political reasons then stick to other language WP's.
Gibraltarian
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
Hi Mark a Yanito WP sounds great. I'll play around with the Gib article on my own and see what I come up with. :o)
From: Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] I can't believe! Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:14:25 -0700
Hi,
What do you think of a Yanito WP?
Mark
On 21/10/05, A Gibraltarian a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com wrote:
Re: creation of other language WP's as far as I am concerned if somebody want to take the trouble why should anyone object?
If someone wants to create one in Klingon, Ancient Greek or Aramaic let
them
get on with it. If you don't know the language or object for political reasons then stick to other language WP's.
Gibraltarian
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Williamson wrote:
I feel I should also make it clear that just because I support the right of these people to claim that they speak these "languages", I most certainly do not support the creation of wikis in these languages.
So while I support the right of people to claim they speak Montenegrin, I think a Montenegrin WP would only exacerbate the current Balkan linguistic dilemma.
Oh good, I was just about to request Wikipedias in Commonwealth English and Dubya :)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/21/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
What I support is not a "hoax", but rather the right to determine one's own sociolinguistic and sociocultural identity.
Mark, at least two linguists (User:Angr is another) said twice that story about Zlatiborian is a hoax.
I strongly support sociocultural identities of various people, but this one would be silly if there would not be some not-so-good-informed people who support them.
Unlike Montenegrins/Montengrin, there are no people who identify themself as Zlatiborians/Zlatiborian speekers except in regional sense.
The person who is propagate Zlatiborian language (Djordje Bozovic) is a bureaucrat on Serbian Wikipedia and declares himself "as Serbian nationalist and Zlatiborian local-patriot" (I can quote his edits on Serbian Wikipedia if anyone wants). BTW, I am not sure what to think about the person who started the story again (User:SellackAlex). She wrote that she is working on Philological Faculty in Belgrade, Departmant of pedagogy and andragogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASellackAlex&diff=260079...) while I can say that there are no such Departmant on _my_ faculty. She corrected it (the correct faculty is Faculty of Philosophy) after I noted this on sr: vilage pump. (Djordje's sock puppet?)
I would like to see a people who works on their sociocultural identities. I would like to see live Chakavian, Kaykavian and Torlakian dialects/languages. But, there are no such trends in Balkans.
But, trends such as "I am living in down town of Belgrade and I am proud of it; people who are not living in down town are less civilized, less important etc." as well as "I am living in Cacak and I am more Serb then others" are very often. In some cases it goes up to quasi-ethnical declaring as "Dorcolian" (the part of Belgrade), "Belgradian", "Zlatiborian" etc. But, again, there are very few of them who would say "I am talking Dorcolian, not Serbian/SC/B/C".
Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin have very small differences. The only reason why they are "separate languages" is political. Between 200.000 and 10.000.000 of people say for themself that they are speaking the language with different name.
But, in the case of Zlatiborian (Belgradian, Dorcolian) it is idiosyncretic. Uzice (the main city of the Zlatibor region) has maybe 50.000 of inhabitans. The whole region has around 100.000 of inhabitans. If 250 of people say for themself that they are speaking Zlatiborian, we would have it in statistics (from 2002). But, there are no any kind of mentioning of Zlatiborian language in statistics (you have the blank line to write what is your language if it is not some of the main languages).
So, less of 250 people say that their language is Zlatiborian language and this speech is the basis of the Serbian Iyekavian standard.
While I don't have anything against anyone who says that "(s)he is speaking Glapolgaptoringian language" even if it is literal English, I think that:
1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If Glapolgaptoringian is the same as English and 100 humans call it Glapolgaptoringian, then it may be noted in the article about English that some people call it in such way. Idiosyncretic naming should stay inside of user space (yes, I agree to move it into Aleksandra's user space but not redirect, and I would say it on the TfD page). Otherwise it makes mass.
2. Wikipedia is not the place for ethnical/national constitution. In the case of Zlatiborian, English Wikipedia is used for that case ("Zlatiborian exists, you can see the article about Zlatiborian on Wikipedia!") I would support Zlatiborians if they are asking for schools in Zlatiborian etc., even I think it is silly. But, I _didn't_heard_ about them and their needs yet!
So, if it is OK to say in Wikipedia article "10 people call Serbian language Zlatiborian" or "Mark Williamson calls English language Glapolgaptoringian", it is OK to keep the language tag.
Also, note that he/she/they took two-letters code "zb"... As well as I took three-letters code for Belgradian. Do you think that there are more relevant languages which would need those codes?
In the past, it would have been possible for many people to change their cultural identity than it is now, and in many cases they would be accepted by the community they sought to join.
If somebody decided that they were part of an ethnic group that previously didn't exist (like if I suddenly decided today I were a Glapolgaptoringian), in some parts of the world what they said would be taken at face value.
If somebody wants to say that their mother tongue is called Zlatiborian, we should let them.
I agree with that. But, as I understud explicite rules on English Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not the place where all human knowledge should be kept. If someone calls his/her language Zlatiborian even it is the same as Serbian and other Zlatiborians (in the sense of rebion) call their language Serbian, then it is idiosyncretic, not relevant in the sense of encyclopedia.
And, of course, when Wikipedia becomes "the place where all human knowledge should be kept" I would completely agree to keep Zlatiborian articles and user boxes.
Again somebody makes the daft mistake of bringing the US into this. When I speak of self-determination for indigenous people or independence for regions in other corners of the earth, people often say something like "Well, why don't you support Texas independence then?" and the most simple answer to that is that I do to the extent that Texans themselves support it. I am not a hypocrit(e).
Yes, Mark, I understand that you would support Texans if they say that they are talking Texanian even it is the same as English as well as I support Montenegrins to call their language as Montenegrin even it is (almost) the same as Serbian.
But, there are a lot of differences between Montenegrins and Zlatiborians. I hope that I explained what are the differences.
Mark, at least two linguists (User:Angr is another) said twice that story about Zlatiborian is a hoax.
And I am not saying Zlatiborian is a real language. What I am saying is that people should be able to decide what it says on their userpage about the languages they speak, even if it's rediculous.
I strongly support sociocultural identities of various people, but this one would be silly if there would not be some not-so-good-informed people who support them.
Are you saying I'm not well informed? I know perfectly well that it's ludicrous to suggest a separate Zlatiborian language. But I believe that these people have the right to say it's the language they speak.
blah blah blah
Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin have very small differences. The only reason why they are "separate languages" is political. Between 200.000 and 10.000.000 of people say for themself that they are speaking the language with different name.
Yes, I know. I may not be fluent in Serbocroatian, but I certainly know what the situation on the ground is.
blah blah blah
Again you bring up statistics, trying to prove to me that Zlatiborian isn't a language. I don't care -- that is irrelevant to my viewpoint. My view is that, REGARDLESS of whether it is a language or not, it should be allowed a Babel template so long as any Wikipedians claim to speak that "language".
While I don't have anything against anyone who says that "(s)he is speaking Glapolgaptoringian language" even if it is literal English, I think that:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If Glapolgaptoringian is the same as
English and 100 humans call it Glapolgaptoringian, then it may be noted in the article about English that some people call it in such way. Idiosyncretic naming should stay inside of user space (yes, I agree to move it into Aleksandra's user space but not redirect, and I would say it on the TfD page). Otherwise it makes mass.
But this *is* the user space!!! The intended use of Babel templates is the user space!!! I don't advocate writing misinformation in articles. But I don't see the harm in keeping Babel templates for languages the existance of which is dubious.
- Wikipedia is not the place for ethnical/national constitution. In
the case of Zlatiborian, English Wikipedia is used for that case ("Zlatiborian exists, you can see the article about Zlatiborian on Wikipedia!") I would support Zlatiborians if they are asking for schools in Zlatiborian etc., even I think it is silly. But, I _didn't_heard_ about them and their needs yet!
We are talking about the user namespace, NOT the article namespace. I don't think any mention of "zlatiborian language" should be made in the article namespace as it really doesn't deserve that mention, but I think it should be allowed in template and user namespaces.
So, if it is OK to say in Wikipedia article "10 people call Serbian language Zlatiborian" or "Mark Williamson calls English language Glapolgaptoringian", it is OK to keep the language tag.
That makes absolutely no sense. The language tag is only for user pages.
Also, note that he/she/they took two-letters code "zb"... As well as I took three-letters code for Belgradian. Do you think that there are more relevant languages which would need those codes?
So far, there is no language with the ISO(/DIS) 639 two-letter code "zb". This may not always be the case; if it is determined that a real ISO code is nessecary, one could just use "zlatibor" or "zlat" or "qzlt", all of which will never become ISO language codes.
I agree with that. But, as I understud explicite rules on English Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not the place where all human knowledge should be kept. If someone calls his/her language Zlatiborian even it is the same as Serbian and other Zlatiborians (in the sense of rebion) call their language Serbian, then it is idiosyncretic, not relevant in the sense of encyclopedia.
Yes, but the user pages aren't part of the encyclopaedia; rather they are a supplement to it.
And, of course, when Wikipedia becomes "the place where all human knowledge should be kept" I would completely agree to keep Zlatiborian articles and user boxes.
Articles should be deleted. Templates for userpages should be kept.
Yes, Mark, I understand that you would support Texans if they say that they are talking Texanian even it is the same as English as well as I support Montenegrins to call their language as Montenegrin even it is (almost) the same as Serbian.
But, there are a lot of differences between Montenegrins and Zlatiborians. I hope that I explained what are the differences.
Well, perhaps it's better to say I would support somebody from LA saying their language is Californian. The speech of LA is more or less the basis for "standard" American English (well, not the basis, but one of the major influences). Grammar and vocabulary are basically the same as the standard, differences are (mostly) only in pronunciation.
Now, this in my mind is equivalent to Zlatiborians and Serbians.
Mark
Also, a quote which is partially funny:
"You would recognize the difference if you could just see some examples of it. Zlatiborian and Serbian are very similar, but a Serbian would say: Nigde na svetu nema lepsega grada od Beograda, but a Zlatiborian says: Nidje na svijetu nema ljepseg grada od Biograda. Or, while a Serbian says: Letos behosmo u Gruziji, posecivasmo hramove i manastire, a Zlatiborian would say: Ljetos bijasmo u Djurdjiji, posjecivasmo crkve i manastire, etc."
Now quite obviously a great deal of that is just Ekavian/Ijekavian (svetu -> svijetu; lepsega -> ljepsega; letos -> ljetos; posecivasmo -> posjecivasmo), I wonder about the rest? Gruziji vs Djurdjiji seems to me to be a moot point because as far as I know, both are accepted in Serbian.
Mark
--- Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org schrieb:
So, less of 250 people say that their language is Zlatiborian language and this speech is the basis of the Serbian Iyekavian standard.
While I don't have anything against anyone who says that "(s)he is speaking Glapolgaptoringian language" even if it is literal English, I think that:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If
Glapolgaptoringian is the same as English and 100 humans call it Glapolgaptoringian, then it may be noted in the article about English that some people call it in such way. Idiosyncretic naming should stay inside of user space (yes, I agree to move it into Aleksandra's user space but not redirect, and I would say it on the TfD page). Otherwise it makes mass.
- Wikipedia is not the place for ethnical/national
constitution. In the case of Zlatiborian, English Wikipedia is used for that case ("Zlatiborian exists, you can see the article about Zlatiborian on Wikipedia!") I would support Zlatiborians if they are asking for schools in Zlatiborian etc., even I think it is silly. But, I _didn't_heard_ about them and their needs yet!
So, if it is OK to say in Wikipedia article "10 people call Serbian language Zlatiborian" or "Mark Williamson calls English language Glapolgaptoringian", it is OK to keep the language tag.
Of course, everybody should have the right to call their language whatever they want. However, an encyclopedia (even a 'free' one!) nevertheless has to focus on scientific facts rather than on (possibly radical) personal opions. From the very small language sample given at RfWinL one can easily tell that "Zlatiborian" is at the most a dialect of the whole sr/hr/bs/sh or whatever-you-wanna-call-it language.
A useful question we could ask ourselves here could be: "Would any well-renowned printed encyclopedia feature an article on 'Zlatiborian'?"
Arbeo
___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
Arbeo, this is about templates on userpages, not articles.
Mark
On 24/10/05, Arbeo M arbeo_m@yahoo.de wrote:
--- Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org schrieb:
So, less of 250 people say that their language is Zlatiborian language and this speech is the basis of the Serbian Iyekavian standard.
While I don't have anything against anyone who says that "(s)he is speaking Glapolgaptoringian language" even if it is literal English, I think that:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If
Glapolgaptoringian is the same as English and 100 humans call it Glapolgaptoringian, then it may be noted in the article about English that some people call it in such way. Idiosyncretic naming should stay inside of user space (yes, I agree to move it into Aleksandra's user space but not redirect, and I would say it on the TfD page). Otherwise it makes mass.
- Wikipedia is not the place for ethnical/national
constitution. In the case of Zlatiborian, English Wikipedia is used for that case ("Zlatiborian exists, you can see the article about Zlatiborian on Wikipedia!") I would support Zlatiborians if they are asking for schools in Zlatiborian etc., even I think it is silly. But, I _didn't_heard_ about them and their needs yet!
So, if it is OK to say in Wikipedia article "10 people call Serbian language Zlatiborian" or "Mark Williamson calls English language Glapolgaptoringian", it is OK to keep the language tag.
Of course, everybody should have the right to call their language whatever they want. However, an encyclopedia (even a 'free' one!) nevertheless has to focus on scientific facts rather than on (possibly radical) personal opions. From the very small language sample given at RfWinL one can easily tell that "Zlatiborian" is at the most a dialect of the whole sr/hr/bs/sh or whatever-you-wanna-call-it language.
A useful question we could ask ourselves here could be: "Would any well-renowned printed encyclopedia feature an article on 'Zlatiborian'?"
Arbeo
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. querría que le enviara una invitación para juntar gmail, favor de envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voudriez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que eu lhe enviasse um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem.
Templates should tell us something, not to confuse people about the facts.
I have the idea about that. May we write in info-boxes: "This user speaks <whatever language name> which is mutually understandeble with <lang1>, <lang2>, <lang3>..."
In general, I don't care about user language boxes when we are talking about Shtokavian standards/potential standards because I know the whole story... But, what about some "exotic" languages where we can be very confused with language naming? Without clear classification, we would get a lot of idiosyncretic "languages" and user language boxes whould be useless.
What others think about the idea?
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Arbeo, this is about templates on userpages, not articles.
Mark
On 24/10/05, Arbeo M arbeo_m@yahoo.de wrote:
--- Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org schrieb:
So, less of 250 people say that their language is Zlatiborian language and this speech is the basis of the Serbian Iyekavian standard.
While I don't have anything against anyone who says that "(s)he is speaking Glapolgaptoringian language" even if it is literal English, I think that:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If
Glapolgaptoringian is the same as English and 100 humans call it Glapolgaptoringian, then it may be noted in the article about English that some people call it in such way. Idiosyncretic naming should stay inside of user space (yes, I agree to move it into Aleksandra's user space but not redirect, and I would say it on the TfD page). Otherwise it makes mass.
- Wikipedia is not the place for ethnical/national
constitution. In the case of Zlatiborian, English Wikipedia is used for that case ("Zlatiborian exists, you can see the article about Zlatiborian on Wikipedia!") I would support Zlatiborians if they are asking for schools in Zlatiborian etc., even I think it is silly. But, I _didn't_heard_ about them and their needs yet!
So, if it is OK to say in Wikipedia article "10 people call Serbian language Zlatiborian" or "Mark Williamson calls English language Glapolgaptoringian", it is OK to keep the language tag.
Of course, everybody should have the right to call their language whatever they want. However, an encyclopedia (even a 'free' one!) nevertheless has to focus on scientific facts rather than on (possibly radical) personal opions. From the very small language sample given at RfWinL one can easily tell that "Zlatiborian" is at the most a dialect of the whole sr/hr/bs/sh or whatever-you-wanna-call-it language.
A useful question we could ask ourselves here could be: "Would any well-renowned printed encyclopedia feature an article on 'Zlatiborian'?"
Arbeo
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. querría que le enviara una invitación para juntar gmail, favor de envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voudriez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que eu lhe enviasse um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I don't think it matters -- even if there is no template, people can make it look like a language template anyhow.
So if they can make something that looks like a rabbit and acts like a rabbit, why not just give them a rabbit?
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
Templates should tell us something, not to confuse people about the facts.
I have the idea about that. May we write in info-boxes: "This user speaks <whatever language name> which is mutually understandeble with <lang1>, <lang2>, <lang3>..."
In general, I don't care about user language boxes when we are talking about Shtokavian standards/potential standards because I know the whole story... But, what about some "exotic" languages where we can be very confused with language naming? Without clear classification, we would get a lot of idiosyncretic "languages" and user language boxes whould be useless.
What others think about the idea?
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Arbeo, this is about templates on userpages, not articles.
Mark
On 24/10/05, Arbeo M arbeo_m@yahoo.de wrote:
--- Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org schrieb:
So, less of 250 people say that their language is Zlatiborian language and this speech is the basis of the Serbian Iyekavian standard.
While I don't have anything against anyone who says that "(s)he is speaking Glapolgaptoringian language" even if it is literal English, I think that:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If
Glapolgaptoringian is the same as English and 100 humans call it Glapolgaptoringian, then it may be noted in the article about English that some people call it in such way. Idiosyncretic naming should stay inside of user space (yes, I agree to move it into Aleksandra's user space but not redirect, and I would say it on the TfD page). Otherwise it makes mass.
- Wikipedia is not the place for ethnical/national
constitution. In the case of Zlatiborian, English Wikipedia is used for that case ("Zlatiborian exists, you can see the article about Zlatiborian on Wikipedia!") I would support Zlatiborians if they are asking for schools in Zlatiborian etc., even I think it is silly. But, I _didn't_heard_ about them and their needs yet!
So, if it is OK to say in Wikipedia article "10 people call Serbian language Zlatiborian" or "Mark Williamson calls English language Glapolgaptoringian", it is OK to keep the language tag.
Of course, everybody should have the right to call their language whatever they want. However, an encyclopedia (even a 'free' one!) nevertheless has to focus on scientific facts rather than on (possibly radical) personal opions. From the very small language sample given at RfWinL one can easily tell that "Zlatiborian" is at the most a dialect of the whole sr/hr/bs/sh or whatever-you-wanna-call-it language.
A useful question we could ask ourselves here could be: "Would any well-renowned printed encyclopedia feature an article on 'Zlatiborian'?"
Arbeo
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. querría que le enviara una invitación para juntar gmail, favor de envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voudriez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que eu lhe enviasse um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. querría que le enviara una invitación para juntar gmail, favor de envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voudriez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que eu lhe enviasse um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem.
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it matters -- even if there is no template, people can make it look like a language template anyhow.
So if they can make something that looks like a rabbit and acts like a rabbit, why not just give them a rabbit?
Because of categorization.
People can still add the category [[Category:User zb]] to their page.
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it matters -- even if there is no template, people can make it look like a language template anyhow.
So if they can make something that looks like a rabbit and acts like a rabbit, why not just give them a rabbit?
Because of categorization. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
But, they can't classify category "User zb" in some super-category of South Slavic speaking people.
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
People can still add the category [[Category:User zb]] to their page.
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it matters -- even if there is no template, people can make it look like a language template anyhow.
So if they can make something that looks like a rabbit and acts like a rabbit, why not just give them a rabbit?
Because of categorization. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Uhh... is there such a category? And if there were, would it matter if that were a part of it? And why couldn't they classify it if it were userified?
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
But, they can't classify category "User zb" in some super-category of South Slavic speaking people.
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
People can still add the category [[Category:User zb]] to their page.
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it matters -- even if there is no template, people can make it look like a language template anyhow.
So if they can make something that looks like a rabbit and acts like a rabbit, why not just give them a rabbit?
Because of categorization. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
As I said, if this user template pass, I don't see any reason why other "regional language" template should not pass.
When someone says that (s)he is speaking Bronxian, Philadelphian, San-Franciscian or even "The Language of 10th New York Avenue" and make a template about that, (s)he would be completely right. Of course, I would be the first who would list all of my native "regional languages" because I have the same feelings toward my regions as the person from Zlatibor toward Zlatibor. As well as I know a lot of people who have the same feelings toward the parts of Belgrade.
And language user templates would become a nonsense.
And I think that this conversation is nonsense, too. If you want to defend such principle even language user templates would become a nonsense, go on. But, I see that there are enough of reasonable people on the poll.
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Uhh... is there such a category? And if there were, would it matter if that were a part of it? And why couldn't they classify it if it were userified?
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
But, they can't classify category "User zb" in some super-category of South Slavic speaking people.
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
People can still add the category [[Category:User zb]] to their page.
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it matters -- even if there is no template, people can make it look like a language template anyhow.
So if they can make something that looks like a rabbit and acts like a rabbit, why not just give them a rabbit?
Because of categorization. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 25/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
As I said, if this user template pass, I don't see any reason why other "regional language" template should not pass.
I have no problem with that.
When someone says that (s)he is speaking Bronxian, Philadelphian, San-Franciscian or even "The Language of 10th New York Avenue" and make a template about that, (s)he would be completely right. Of course, I would be the first who would list all of my native "regional languages" because I have the same feelings toward my regions as the person from Zlatibor toward Zlatibor. As well as I know a lot of people who have the same feelings toward the parts of Belgrade.
So, do you consider Belgradian to be your mother tongue? I, for one, think you're blowing smoke and disrupting WP to prove a point.
How many people do you think honestly consider Bronxian or Philadelphian or San-Franciscan to be their mother tongue? Probably only a handful. And what are the chances that these people are Wikipedians?
And language user templates would become a nonsense.
And I think that this conversation is nonsense, too. If you want to defend such principle even language user templates would become a nonsense, go on. But, I see that there are enough of reasonable people on the poll.
Wikipedia is about consensus, not "majority rules".
Mark
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Uhh... is there such a category? And if there were, would it matter if that were a part of it? And why couldn't they classify it if it were userified?
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
But, they can't classify category "User zb" in some super-category of South Slavic speaking people.
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
People can still add the category [[Category:User zb]] to their page.
Mark
On 24/10/05, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
On 10/24/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it matters -- even if there is no template, people can make it look like a language template anyhow.
So if they can make something that looks like a rabbit and acts like a rabbit, why not just give them a rabbit?
Because of categorization. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail. Si ud. quiere que le envíe una invitación para juntar gmail, envíeme un mensaje. Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation à joindre gmail, envoyez-moi s.v.p un message. Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de envie-me uma mensagem. Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.
On 10/26/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
When someone says that (s)he is speaking Bronxian, Philadelphian, San-Franciscian or even "The Language of 10th New York Avenue" and make a template about that, (s)he would be completely right. Of course, I would be the first who would list all of my native "regional languages" because I have the same feelings toward my regions as the person from Zlatibor toward Zlatibor. As well as I know a lot of people who have the same feelings toward the parts of Belgrade.
So, do you consider Belgradian to be your mother tongue? I, for one, think you're blowing smoke and disrupting WP to prove a point.
No, if it is possible to have "regional languages", I said that I have the same feelings for my regions as Zlatiborians for their.
How many people do you think honestly consider Bronxian or Philadelphian or San-Franciscan to be their mother tongue? Probably only a handful. And what are the chances that these people are Wikipedians?
There is more chance to have the person like that then person from Zlatibor. There are much more computers in San Francisco then in Zlatibor. If Wikipedia's official policy is to have "regional templates", I am sure that a lot of people would like to have their "regional language templates".
And language user templates would become a nonsense.
And I think that this conversation is nonsense, too. If you want to defend such principle even language user templates would become a nonsense, go on. But, I see that there are enough of reasonable people on the poll.
Wikipedia is about consensus, not "majority rules".
You have strong principles. The same one you are using about one more Chinese Wikipedia as you are using for the Zlatibor language template.
So, do you consider Belgradian to be your mother tongue? I, for one, think you're blowing smoke and disrupting WP to prove a point.
No, if it is possible to have "regional languages", I said that I have the same feelings for my regions as Zlatiborians for their.
I don't care about your feelings vs. their feelings. I will ask you again: Do you consider Belgradian to be your mother tongue?
There is more chance to have the person like that then person from Zlatibor. There are much more computers in San Francisco then in Zlatibor. If Wikipedia's official policy is to have "regional templates", I am sure that a lot of people would like to have their "regional language templates".
I don't advocate a policy of _having_ such templates, but rather of _allowing_ them when people who plan to actually use them want to create them. In your case, it seems more like you're wanting to disrupt WP to make a point, rather than that you actually feel like Belgradian is your mother tongue.
Wikipedia is about consensus, not "majority rules".
You have strong principles. The same one you are using about one more Chinese Wikipedia as you are using for the Zlatibor language template.
What? I didn't say anything about having another Chinese WP. Yes, I advocate for Cantonese and Wu WPs, but contrary to what you may think these aren't "one more Chinese Wikipedia".
Now, what I assume here is that you're trying to tell me that my belief is in a "majority rules" policy and that I should apply it everywhere.
Quite the contrary, I still believe in consensus. However, assuming good faith, I have not contested the 3 or so votes against a Cantonese WP that are either unsigned or signed by an anonymous user, as well as those by users who appear to be likely sockpuppets. I have not insisted that every voter verify their identity.
Also, the difference between a straight-out vote and a straw poll whose goal is to achieve consensus is that a straight-out vote doesn't nessecarily include elaboration on the opinions of the voters, just a simple "aye" or "nay". Nobody has insisted that all the Sinitic-wp voters on Meta all elaborate on their positions. Many have simply voted support or oppose with no explanation.
On the other hand, on the template-deletion page, people have expressed more detailed opinions which, although diametrically opposed, could probably find some sort of compromise in between.
And I should also add that Meta and individual Wikipedias are very different sites with very different rules -- many of the articles at Meta would be speedied if they were posted to en.wiki.
Mark
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org