[Wikipedia-l] Meta-Tree

[Ray Saintonge]

tarquin wrote:

> So much for meta-wikipedia being a quiet corner to work things out...
> Someone on Wikipedia:Village pump recently wrote "I stumbled across 
> Tarquin's style guide for the layout of contents of these pages".
>
> I haven't had much feedback on this, I'm presuming either a) the list 
> approves and therefore doesn't have much to comment, or b) you're 
> still all baffled by the whole concept.
>
> I don't think I can do much more by way of working out a useful 
> structure in what is effectively Sandbox mode, so I propose to move 
> the pages to the wikipedia: namespace, so we can start actually using 
> it and refine it as we go.
>
You can't have it both ways!  Either you'll find a quiet sandbox to 
build castles, or all the kids will come along and destroy it with their 
wonder.  The lack of feedback is probably because most people haven't 
noticed yet rather than because of either of your two suggestions.

Apart from my complaint that it should be French "Departments" on the 
English Wikipedia rather than "Departements", I do find that there is 
some merit to the general concept.  I would suggest moving slowly, 
probably starting with the "Meta-Wiki - General" page.  Lately, since 
the recent changes page has been listing every time an article changes, 
I've been finding that page to be overwhelming with its nearly 2,000 
entries every day.  By putting too many pages at once you may find them 
all accepted by default, and not as a result of due consideration.  

I also think that we do need some mechanism for gauging the level of 
acceptance that a proposal has.  There has been some value to people 
expressing their view about the acceptability of a particular rule.  In 
many cases acceptance appeared unanimous.  In a significant propotion, 
however, either outright opposition was recorded, or small amendments 
were suggested to make it more acceptable.  The mechanism seemed to be 
lacking to carry the matter any further.  Instead style debates have 
erupted on the talk pages for specific articles without regard to the 
presence of a page that discusses the issue in more general terms.  

Any ideas on how we can gauge the acceptability of a rule, especially a 
naming convention?

Eclecticology