On 6/4/03 2:03 PM, "JFrost8401(a)aol.com" <JFrost8401(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 04/06/03 18:14:49 GMT Daylight
Time, fredbaud(a)ctelco.net
writes:
Good work, but that still doesn't give you
the final word.
Fred
So who decides?
I assumed there was intended to be some sort of consensus, as when the present
policy was agreed by all who participated. At present, the lineup appears to
be a few people who, pace Vicki, do not make significant contribution to the
fauna articles, whereas Kingturtle, Tannin, Steve Nova and myself are fairly
happy with the present situation. This hardly seems a clear mandate for
changing the current policy.
Personally, I think it will be a sad day if style triumphs over substance, and
I can't help thinking we could all be better occupied creating and improving
articles instead of revisiting a previously agreed policy, with the inevitable
acrimony that tends to creep in.
There are huge numbers of American bird species that have no articles at all.
Wouldn't it be better to write some instead of wasting time on the umpteenth
regurgitation of this topic?
Yes. I also am one who believes that Wikipedia policies should follow a
variant of Occam's Razor--given two reasonable policies, choose the one less
likely to instigate conflict.
For example, instead of asserting that There Exists One Correct
Capitalization For Bird Names, admit that there is clearly dispute in the
outside world as to what is preferable, and let people do what they see fit.
It's the same rule we've followed with American/British spelling, and it
works fine. I'm driven crazy every time I see the [[humour]] article, but I
recognize that it actually isn't important.