[WikiEN-l] Naming conventions - use of the word Slogan to qualify a title

[Fred Bauder]

I just don't like the usage at all. It's a sneaky way to put dirty stuff on
Wikipedia.

Fred

> From: "james duffy" <jtdirl at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:27:34 +0000
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Naming conventions - use of the word Slogan to qualify a
> title
> 
> 
> The Cunctator has begun renaming the articles on slogans to remove the form
> [[Slogan: . . . ]] which had been used by general agreement. However he
> argued that no compromise was likely therefore he went and began renaming
> everything unilaterally. So we need to find some sort of agreement rather
> than have  The Cunctator unilaterally deciding wiki policy. Otherwise we
> will have endless endless renaming wars.
> 
> I propose we use the form [[Slogan: . . . ]] rather than the alternative [[
> . . . (slogan)]].
> 
> 1. Some people complained about how we don't say [[Book: . . . ]] or [[Film:
> . . . ]] and that therefore putting in slogan was wrong. I disagree. A
> slogan is by definition POV. Used without qualification, particularly if the
> slogan is politically controversial, rascist, homophobic, or derogatory to
> some people's religious, ethnic of cultural origins, can cause offence or
> appear to be endorsing the POV in the slogan. The use of the word slogan in
> the title is necessary to distance wiki from the slogan message as it would
> appear on the list or on google. Doing that would NPOV it by drawing
> attention to the fact that we are merely repeating a slogan, not expressing
> one.
> 
> 2. Putting it in brackets at the end of the line could cause problems if a
> slogan is long, for the '(slogan)' might not appear on goggle, if the end of
> a long line was cut off. Instead people simply see a POV slogan coming from
> wikipedia.
> 
> 3. Putting '(slogan)' at the end means that people would be greeted with a
> potentially POV slogan, with which they might have a strong positive or
> negative reaction - prior to reaching the end of the line (if they see it at
> all) where it is neutralised by the word slogan. Putting the word slogan in
> first means that before they even read the slogan they know it is a slogan
> and is featuring on wiki as a slogan, not POV propaganda. The very first
> word people read in an article title is the first word. Not everyone reads
> the full title, particularly if it is a long title. So the key NPOVing word
> 'slogan' should be where everyone can will and can see it, at the first.
> 
> 4. Grammatically, having it at the front of the line makes more sense. For
> example, [[Slogan: AIDS Kills Fags Dead]] in effect reads, 'the slogan: AIDS
> Kills Fags Dead'. Putting it at the end effectively reads 'AIDS Kills Fags
> Dead - which is a slogan' As I said above, people may have a very strong
> reaction to that particular slogan. Using the 'slogan' word upfront NPOVs
> the statement by contextualising it as a slogan, not an expression of a POV.
> Put at the end, people may well have had an emotional POV reaction (for or
> against) before they reach the word slogan at the end, if they even notice
> it.
> 
> 5. Using both forms (as The Cunctator seems to want) seems unnecessarily
> complicated. It makes logical sense to use one standard template, not two
> because using two (with [[Slogan: . . .]] being used for controversial
> slogans poses the question:  who decides if a slogan is controversial
> enough? Some people might see a slogan as sufficiently NPOV enough to use
> '(slogan)' at the end. Others might disagree and the result would be an
> edit/renaming war. Having one template means that no-one has to form a value
> judgment on whether it is or is not controversial. If it is a slogan, the
> one universal format is used.
> 
> We do need to have some sort of consensus agreement on this issue set out
> clearly. The Cunctator has already annoyed people involved in the debate by
> his unilateral action. It would help the situation enormously if we had
> clear agreement on the form, which could then be entered as a naming
> convention to which people could refer, rather than producing constant rows
> over slogans today, tomorrow, next month, six months down the line, etc.
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> JT
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l