[Wikipedia-l] Re: Press release : Logo putsch on the FrenchWi kipedia !

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

> Constans, Camille (C.C.) a rit:
>
>>> And this is not even mentionning that the proper way to write is the 
>>> one suggested by the French Academy or the French Typographic Code. 
>>> Perhaps Canada has a chance as well here, but I doubt a decree in 
>>> Algeria about how to use french would be given much consideration :-)
>>
>> Difficult question too, i would like to know it works between 
>> American People and british people ?
>
> More or less ok, I think. That is, if an article was written in 
> british english, american people are supposed not to entirely rewrite 
> it in american english. Same reversely. 

Exactly, and it seems like such a simple principle that it is hard to 
understand why others could not accept it.  But neither the Americans 
nor the British have an Academy tasked with insuring the purity of the 
language.  Tradition, precedence and usage form a greater part of the 
English speaking mind in language as in law.  

Unfortunately, some French seem to give the decrees of the Académie 
française the weight of law, leading to the ridiculous conclusion that 
not following these decrees would be contrary to French law.

>>> It is just another step. Dominancy over content, over style, logo :-)))
>>
>> Do you think we're really pov ? We're working to prevent that, I hope...
>
>
> CK is suggesting that it is perfectly ok to add to wikipedia that some 
> words should preferably be used instead of others.
> We can laugh upon the aubette, but there are about a dozen other words.
>
> He says it is ok that wikipedia article contains that
> *"people should preferably use the word "batonnet ouaté rather than 
> "cotton tige"" 

Saying that one usage is to be preferred is a POV that should be 
considered.  "Prefer" is not "oblige".  A person should not be condemned 
for using the other term, and its consistent usage in a single article 
should not automatically be changed.  When I saw this I went to see what 
was written on the "Q-Tip" box where they use "cotton swab" in English 
and "coton-tige" in French.  (with one "t" and a hyphen)  Under the 
circumstance I would feel rightfully offended if someone chose to change 
my usage of "coton-tige". 

> 4) Tarquin will add on top of that, that Wikipedia is not a 
> dictionary, we are not discussing over words, but over concepts, hence 
> it is not a good idea to have two articles, one for cotton tige, the 
> other for batonnet ouat we all clean our ears just the same way, so 
> one article is enough. 

If it's a question of an article related to the generic Q-Tip the title 
used by the person who first wrote the article should prevail.  The WP 
is not a dictionary argument is a completely different and irrelevant 
issue.  I am assuming that there is enough material about the history 
and use of the little stick to warrant a WP article.

> So we do discuss again. Meanwhile, there are a couple of very 
> interesting exchanges on typographic rules 

One that I thought strange was the insistance that the "oe" digraph be 
used.  That seemed terribly pedantic.  

> Then what is CK answer, in an open letter to Tarquin and I
> 2) that he is a long-lasting professional (28 years old expertise on 
> typography) 

A logical fallacy when used to insist that a POV is correct.

> 3) that the word comes from Belgium anyway 

Huh?

> 4) that the Acadie Franise does not respect NPOV itself 

Probably true

> How reasonable is it to spent hours on such a trivial matter ? :-)))) 

Not at all, but it happens with great regularity on WP in all languages. 
:-)

>>> As a matter of interest, I would be curious to know how those 
>>> internationals, that are split between wikipedias assume that. I 
>>> find extremely disconcerting to see two parts of a "common" project 
>>> being so different. It is a bit like that psychological disorder :-) 
>>
If that's a psychological disorder, you should listen to the comments 
from people who have nothing to do with Wikipedia. :-D

>> Do you think we're really different ? I'm sure there's some probleme 
>> as ours on en, de, nl, oc,   oups not oc, there's no yet enough 
>> people :) 
>
Yes, but that's OK.  See your own comments to Ruimu.

> Of course, there are problems on every wikipedia. But, I was trying to 
> think about it, and on every single rule or usage I could think of, 
> fr: and en: are different.
> We don't use the same rules to delete, or to undelete
> We don't use the same rules to name people sysops
> We don't put the interlanguage links in the same order or the same 
> place I think
> We don't use page protection in edit wars the same way
> We accept or do not accept the same way foreign languages in articles
> The etiquette is different 

That's healthy.  Vive la différence!

Ec