Something different to talk about. I have wondered for some time if it
is really the case that we have not addressed the issue of alias
names, where the point may simply be alternate spellings. This is not
particularly important for contemporary names that are already
Romanised. It is
On 18 October 2010 12:23, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
As far as I can see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]] doesn't
cover this ground, while dealing with numerous points in the same
general area of naming. My instinct is that multiple possible spellings,
I've always said that extensive variants on spelling and
transliterations should go into footnotes and/or a section in the
article itself, rather than in the first sentence of the lead section,
but there is also an argument that people expect to find it in the
first sentence. Where to draw the
Spooky. We both typed YMMV. :-)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Read this a few days ago, and thought it was really good. Wanted to
say that, even if there isn't much more to add. I particularly liked
the last bit:
We're an educational institution in two senses: we write educational
material for the world in general, and we educate each other.
Carcharoth
On
On 17 October 2010 06:22, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
We're an educational institution in two senses: we write educational
material forv the world in general, and we educate each other.
I strongly suggest you start a Wikimedia-related blog and crosspost
posts like this to it,
On 17 October 2010 06:22, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
We're an educational institution in two senses: we write educational
material forv the world in general, and we educate each other.
I strongly suggest you start a Wikimedia-related blog and crosspost
posts like this to it,
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, it
took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 (Wikipedia's
entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain
for human life.)
The coverage in his article and in
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, it
took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 (Wikipedia's
entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:42, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic,
it took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his
arguments on infanticide may be too prominent.
Are you speaking of the article on the German Wikipedia?
Fred
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If anything,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If
On 18 October 2010 12:23, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
As far as I can see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]] doesn't
cover this ground, while dealing with numerous points in the same
general area of naming. My instinct is that multiple possible spellings,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Maybe an infobox section would be appropriate here?
Oh, please no. You need to explain the name variants and languages,
otherwise you get nationalists edit-warring incessantly over it. The
Copernicus one is a good
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:23, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like
Certainly we don't need something like the five names in one sentence
we currently have for Copernicus: *Nicolaus Copernicus* (Polish:
*Miko?aj Kopernik*; German: *Nikolaus Kopernikus*; in his youth,
*Niclas Koppernigk*;[1] Italian: *Nicol? Copernico*; 19 February 1473
? 24 May 1543) was a
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:50 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Five versions of the name is positively simplex. The
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Westbourne manages eleven without
overwhelming the article.
I will never think of Sloane Square tube station in the
18 matches
Mail list logo
