Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

2009/7/7 Samuel Klein : > Once a name or monument transcends what it originally named and is > used by reference to describe similar things elsewhere, there is a > tendency to add the definite article -- the Earth, the Sun, the > Sphinx, the Oracle, the Colosseum.  I do see people running wikis of

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

Once a name or monument transcends what it originally named and is used by reference to describe similar things elsewhere, there is a tendency to add the definite article -- the Earth, the Sun, the Sphinx, the Oracle, the Colosseum. I do see people running wikis of any sort on their own or their c

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

Samuel Klein wrote: > Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia. > > When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a > common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an > article. > > "Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation." is correct; so are

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

Okay, I have to say that this whole thread makes us all look a little silly. Let it be known everlastingly that *this*is why we don't say "the Wikipedia."' Sheesh. Steven On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/28 Samuel Klein : >> Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia. > > As far as I'm concerned "Wikimedia" doesn't exist as a proper noun. > It's just an adjective: "the Wikimedia Foundation", "the Wikimedia > movement", "the

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

2009/6/28 Samuel Klein : > Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia. As far as I'm concerned "Wikimedia" doesn't exist as a proper noun. It's just an adjective: "the Wikimedia Foundation", "the Wikimedia movement", "the Wikimedia projects", "the Wikimedia community" etc. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > ps - I am confused by the first sentence on wikimedia.org [what does > 'Wikimedia' mean there?], and the footer of wikimediafoundation says > "About Wikimedia Foundation" -- missing an article. > Well, the name of the foundation is "Wikimedi

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia. When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an article. "Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation." is correct; so are "The English Wikipedia", "the

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

2009/6/27 Unionhawk : > "Wikipedia" and "the Foundation" sounds right to me. When in doubt, if it > sounds right, it probably is. German grammar, I can't help you... Dieser > Benutzer *hat keine > Deutschkenntnisse > *. "The Foundation" is an interest

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray > wrote: > >> (Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word - >> we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia >> Britannica", because "I looked it up in ency

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

2009/6/27 Anthony : > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray > wrote: > >> (Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word - >> we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia >> Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be >> w

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: > (Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word - > we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia > Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be > wrong) I don't have a problem

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37, Michael Snow wrote: > There are some situations where you would use the definite article for > singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the > name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. I would also use the definite artic

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

"Wikipedia" and "the Foundation" sounds right to me. When in doubt, if it sounds right, it probably is. German grammar, I can't help you... Dieser Benutzer *hat keine Deutschkenntnisse *. On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > When I

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

When I look into Duden Die Grammatik, this authoritative reference work about German grammar says that proper names (Angela, Berlin, Christmas) don't get an article: "Hamburg liegt an der Elbe." But it mentions many exceptions, like for rivers who actually do get an article (such as "die Elbe"). An

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

2009/6/27 Michael Snow : > Ziko van Dijk wrote: >> Hello, >> Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite >> article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the >> Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and >> non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

Let's just cut to the point; it's pretty much the same reason we don't abbreviate as wiki; just thinking about somebody calling Wikipedia "the Wikipedia" makes my head hurt... --Unionhawk On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > Ziko van Dijk wrote: > > Hello, > > Could someone exp

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Hello, > Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite > article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the > Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and > non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der > Brockha

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

I've always assumed it's because websites are locations... not things. You don't say "go to the google" or "go to the wikipedia" for the same reason you do not say "go to the new york" or "go to the london" -- Eddie A. Tejeda On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Hello, > Co

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

2009/6/27 Ziko van Dijk : > Hello, > Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite > article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the > Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and > non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der > Br

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

2009/6/27 Ziko van Dijk : > Hello, > Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite > article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the > Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and > non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der > Br

Re: [Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

Hoi, When you talk about the wikipedia, it indicate in my appreciation this authoritative instance. There is no such thing as *the* authoritative Wikipedia. While many consider the English Wikipedia as such, it is very much the German Wikipedia that pioneered the use of Flagged Revision, it is the

[Foundation-l] Why "Wikipedia" and not "the Wikipedia"?

Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus". Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko