[WikiEN-l] Let's follow Wikipedia rules for the Gaia articles

[Robert]

Let me say this one more time. Wikipedia has simple
coventions for disambiguation: We have Disambiguation
pages. We also have "See also" links at the bottom of most
articles.  Further, this is the *English* Wikipedia, and we
need to us enaming conventions and spellings that most
English speakers are familiar with, and like to use. What
about this is so difficult to grasp?

For as long as I have been on Wikipedia, we all have had to
follow the same rules. For instance, Wikipedia does NOT
break apart every topic into topic-fragments by author. Let
me give you an example:

We DO NOT have 
  Evolution (Gould)
  Evolution (Dawkins)
  Evolution (Darwin)
  Evolution (Mayr)
  and...Evolution!


We DO NOT have:
  Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg)
  Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger)
  Quantum Mechanics (Dirac)
  and...Quantum Mechanics!


We DO NOT have:
  Relativity (classical)
  Relativity (Einstein)
  Relativity (Superstring extension) 
  Relativity (Supersymmetry extension)
  and...Relativity

So why do we now have:
  Gaia theory
  Gaia hypothesis
  Gaia (goddess)...including BIOLOGY theories?!?!
  Gaia theory (Biology)

Anthere's obsession with having more and more articles on
the same topic is unjustifiable, confusing, and misleading.
She also is using a naming terminology that English
speakers DO NOT use. Jimbo Wales and others have already
made clear that our primary purpose here is to make this
project accessible and clear to an English speaking
audience.  The terms we use are extremely imporant,
otherwise people looking for one topic could very well miss
much of what we have to offer on it.

Chopping up articles like Anthere does is confusing to the
reader. Someone will read one article, and think that they
have read what they need to on the subject...all the while
mising the other critical information on the other pages.
(And let's be real, most people DO NOT follow most links.
They follow a few links, that's all.)

Anthere's method prevents future edits from being useful.
Someone new will come along, and find one or two of her
Gaia articles; they might want to contribute, and make an
addition or an edit. Sounds good...but they probably will
only make the edit to one part of the whole; what about all
the other articles on the same topic?

And it gets worse. Many scientists have written on the Gaia
theory, not just the two that Anthere is dwelling on.  Will
she create even more, such as [[Gaia theory (Dawkins)]]? 
If not, why?  She already is doing so now...if we follow
her convention, we will have to do so for many more
articles.  And why is her naming convention being defended
for this one topic only, but rejected for other topics?

Again, this is not about content or NPOV. Anthere should
not be jamming tiny bits of an entire subject into four
separate articles.

Worst of all, the primary page [[Gaia theory]] is very
misleading...because Anthere refuses to let us discuss gaia
theory here!  Instead, she focuses on pre-gaia theory
theology and mysticism, and on radical left-wing politics! 
She forces any real discussion of Gaia theory into
sub-pages. That is bizarre. I don't know what her college
is like, but among *English* speakers, the phrase "Gaia
theory" refers exclusively to a scientific thoery.

We English speakers to use the phrase "Gaia theory" to
refer to biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis, et. al.
Only on the rarest of occasions does anyone use it to refer
to anything else. Anthere's demands for namin conventions
are totally backwards. It is the [[Gaia theory]] article
which should be about the Gaia biological theories by
Lovelock, Margulis. If someone wants to read about
Anthere's other interests, such as quasi-Gaian mystial
theories of other people from previous decades and
centuries, that should be on some other page such as "Gaia
theory (precedents)".  If someone wants to read about
radical left-wing political groups, that should not be here
either, but rather in another article.

This article should be about biology, because most English
speakers who want to discuss this subject will use this
name. What about this is so unreasonable? All I am asking
is that we follow the same rules as we follow everywhere
else.

Robert (RK)


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com