396:"Accessibility" does not dominate "correctness" because in most cases there is no contradiction between "accessibility" and "correctness", as the name of Knowledge (XXG) articles is reflected in that used in reliable English language sources. The only time when these come into dispute is when there is a divide in the reliable sources. For example the sources are split on the meaning of Big Ben. Some reliable sources state that it is only the Bell, others say that by association it is the Tower, Clock and Bell. Who is to say which is "correct" as all of them are nicknames? But one thing is for sure "Big Ben" is a better name than having three articles called
1091:, then that is its name and it is not biased for Knowledge (XXG) to call it that too. If all your reliable sources on a mathematical concept spurn the most easily recognised name in favour of a more precise term, then precision must be necessary in this context, so use the more precise term. If all your reliable sources on birds use standardised common names, then by all means impose the same consistency on Knowledge (XXG) articles. If all your reliable sources ignore the actual title of the book and simply use
214:
and a "tactical offensive operation" (and presumably the opposites "strategic defensive operations" etc). There is one particular editor who has argued long and hard that we should use the names that Soviet military history use for these operations and not the names used by western historians because western historian base their names on German military biographies written during the Cold war so they carry a POV and they are not systematic. This argument has been refuted several times at
1149:
unaltered for just under 7 years. It would have been possible to have used other naming methods, for example each page could simply have an index number and all names could be redirects. This was not chosen as the method for naming pages, if it had then the naming of pages would not have been an issue (as all links to a page would have been through redirects). This would have put some extra strain on the servers (double look ups), but it would have been easier for editors.
830:
policy compromises by saying "forget the rest, just choose the most accessible name". That sucks. It is horrible prescriptive. It doesn't work. People are ignoring it. This proposal steps back from that, and says "do your best, find the best compromise, we trust you." As I've said, that is what people are doing anyhow. They are taking other values into account irrespective of what the policy says. I've given plenty of examples of that.
106:) I would like to reply in more detail, but am not sure where to do so. Hesperian where would you like to conduct the conversation? Also such a large change would need very wide participation to build a large consensus, because the effects of such changes can be surprising and far reaching in areas of Knowledge (XXG) which can not easily be predicted without a working knowledge of that area (unforeseen consequences). --
337:
of the naming conventions the
Military History project has had to create its own guideline, specifically to stop Wikipedians who edit in this area from over using acronyms and code names. I put it to you that if this is a value based system there will be a tendency by specialists to prefer the "correct" name over the "common" name. This is the Balkanisation of Wikipeia I have mentioned before. --
400:, the "Clock in the clock tower, Palace of Westminster" and the "Great Bell in the clock tower, Palace of Westminster". There is no such thing as correctness, there is informal and formal names, Knowledge (XXG) does not use either it uses the name most often used in reliable sources, and if that name is not clear do considerations like weighting towards a formal name come into play. --
488:
1182:
field. And that is before any specific flora guideline is used. Given that, I see no particular advantage of fixing something that is not broken and introducing a new method of naming pages which AFAICT throws more problems than it purports to fix. However I am still open to being persuaded that this is the way forward, but at the moment it seems better to me to make
336:
The trouble with military historians like all specialists, they use jargon between themselves (being military historians, like the military, they love acronyms and code names), which means that the names they would choose are not necessarily the names which the general public would recognise. Because
318:
The other angle here is that the mere existence of an argument where people are arguing for an allegedly more correct, allegedly less biased title, rather than the allegedly more accessible title, is further proof that people really do approach these issues with more than one value in their mind. The
67:
title should" type of language though, particularly in the list of values near the top, to prevent misinterpretations when sentences are cited out of context. And given that we have to put them in some order, I would put
Accessibility first, since it does seem to be the concern that has most commonly
213:
would give no end of problems is with the naming of Soviet offensive during World War II, the
Soviets military historians had a very specific naming convention which granulates offensives quite precisely, for example there is a difference between "strategic offensive operation" "offensive operation"
1181:
and AFAICT less than 20% of those pages would not be unequivocally at their scientific names if commonly used name was to be implemented in that area. Of that 20%, given all the other general guidance, far less than that would end up at a name other than that of the name used by specialists in that
1036:
in
English call the subject." This addition fixed lots of problems that previous specific fixes had tried to tackle. Many of those fixes are now redundant as the outcome when one looks at reliable sources is the same as that which the specific guidelines advocated. This was an example where a small
976:
This is covered by the
Consensus policy, and is not directly relevant to the naming conventions. It is suggested in some of the guidelines as a possible solution when other things criteria can not be agreed upon (for example color/colour) but to elevate stability to the same level as other criteria
725:
Strike that; you and
Septentrionalis are quite right; it is covered by the text "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Knowledge (XXG) takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common
82:
As hesitant as I might be about this change, it does appear to be an improvement. The
Consistency section may need some work to deal with conflicting naming conventions. Also there are hints that titles should make clear what the subject is. This could lead to renames for titles that are correct
829:
You seem to be missing the point that these are values, not rules. The proposal does not demand that every title achieve all these values simultaneously. That would be impossible. And since it is impossible for every title to achieve all these values simultaneously, we much compromise. The present
810:
Does this mean that all the articles about colour should be spelt one way or another? I know that this is not the intention but that is how some will understand the wording. Further there are lots of articles at the moment that could have a consistent names but because they are under commonly used
237:
Apart from the fact the
English sources do not usually make these distinctions, (the word cauldron is sometimes used because it is the German military term for a pocket), so the terms are not often used they are used in some translations of Russian military texts. They are firmly established terms
915:
But seriously, I see your point, but it has long been established that policies are descriptive not prescriptive. Editors really are bringing all these values to naming discussions. Decisions really are being made on the basis of values other than accessibility. How many concrete examples of that
143:
Re: "such a large change would need very wide participation", I agree. Eventually this will have to be tagged as proposed, advertised at the pump, etcetera. But I am under no illusions as to my inability to write a solid and elegant policy from scratch all on my own, so I would prefer to see this
1052:
Yes, I can see how the reliable sources clause has wide-ranging implications, covering accessibility, correctness, precision and neutrality. Possibly some of this could be recast so that it is clear that the value emerges naturally from a commitment to follow the lead of reliable sources when it
1148:
When asked directions to a place for which the giving of directions are complicated, there is an old Irish saying to such an enquiry "If I wanted to go there, I wouldn't start from here". The method of naming pages on
Knowledge (XXG) has been stable for 8 years and the key paragraph has existed
1163:
If no then we get into a whole string of other conditions. Quite a few of those conditions have been made redundant by the introduction of determining the name by reliable sources as the reliable sources in many areas nearly always come out with the name described in the further guidance. (The
128:
Re: "so many areas where there are conflict between the principles it describes", I think the most compelling reason to adopt something along these lines is that these conflicted areas are going to exist whether this policy acknowledges their existence or not. Every example I've used here is a
561:
They're still in tension. At present the policy says that the tension should be resolved by ignoring all other values and focussing solely on accessibility. There is plenty of evidence that this is unsatisfactory to many editors, and unsatisfactory in many cases, and that the tension is being
311:
Having considered how our values impact on this case, it is clear that this decision comes down to a conflict between a highly accessible name and a little-known name that is strictly correct. Personally, as someone who doesn't fully understand the full context, I don't see either side of the
509:
Yes. The proposal acknowledges that these values are constantly in tension. The tension exists in the names themselves, in the disputes over names, in the mental process of weighing up what is the best name. The proposal doesn't create these clashes; it accurately reports their existence.
1015:
as distinct from the
Consensus Policy. From the reader's point of view, it may be disconcerting and thought unprofessional if a title changes frequently for no obvious reason. The first line in the draft under this heading (copied from the existing policy) makes this point, more or less.
1152:
But given that every page has to have a name and not an index number, the vast majority of pages are at their common name and most editors use the algorithm as described in the naming conventions for most articles. The algorithm we have to decide on a page at the moment is a simple one.
1176:
For example the only English king since 1066 for whom there is any question of using a cognomen is William the Conqueror, even Richard the Lionheart is usually known as Richard I in reliable sources. The only guideline which seems to totally reject the current common convention is
880:
Then I had been missing the point! Rules make it simpler to apply the naming conventions. If these are are values then every name will always be open to debate at any time. Further different people will have their own POVs on the values. At the moment rules mesh well with
1098:
The policy would perhaps capture this elegance if the fundamental principle was "Use what reliable sources use" rather than "Use the most easily recognised name". That we are directed to assess the latter by recourse to the former is no comfort. To put it another
226:
consisting of the "Seelow-Berlin Offensive Operation", "Settin-Rostock Offensive Operation", "Settin-Rostock Offensive Operation", "Spremberg-Torgau Offensive Operation", "Brandenberg-Ratenow Offensive Operation" among other. When enemy forces are forced into a
1114:
Such a change would be much nearer to a clarification (<-- there's that word) than a major policy change. It would, I think, maintain the premise that you're looking to maintain, whilst eliminating the false premise that naming is purely a popularity
371:; just as much as at present when the later dominates the former. If the community as a whole wishes, or tends, to move in a certain direction, do you see a role for policy in preventing them from doing so? Who has the right to make a policy like that?
231:
during one of these attacks then they kotel (cauldron), to reflect very large, strategic, size of trapped enemy forces; a meshok (sack) to reflect operational size of trapped enemy forces; a gnezdo (nest) to reflect a tactical size of trapped enemy
1124:
This line of reasoning has nothing to say about what to do when sources don't agree on what name to use, and (perhaps equivalently) fails to describe the practices of Wikipedians when faced with this problem (e.g. the royalty and nobility
707:
Septentrionalis has said the same thing, but that is not my reading of the content you've linked to. I too have concerns about how to phrase this section, which I've raised independently at WT:NC. Please help me thrash this out.
995:
This was added by Wsiegmund a little while ago. I am not yet sure how I feel about it. I think it could be made to fit in here fairly comfortably, but I also think the policy (if it becomes one) will be just fine without it.
101:
I think that the wording is likely to cause as many problems as it solves, because there are so many areas where there are conflict between the principles it describes. I made some points on this subject some time ago (see
1031:
Many of the rules put into the naming convention policy and guidelines were added before the middle of 2008 when before we added to the policy "Knowledge (XXG) determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what
272:
I agree with everything you've said here. The first sentence of the correctness section makes it clear, I think, that much of the time there won't be a unique correct name. All this policy proposal says is that
811:
names they are not consistent should they be? Probably not as consistency for consistency sake is attractive, and something that humans like (canals on Mars) and this is likely to unleash lots of disputes. --
911:
I would like for you to go over to the flora naming convention and say "your convention is much better than the general policy because it is much easier to determine the name even if one does not like the
103:
238:
and often there is no common English equivalent, but do we really want an general English encyclopaedia using terms that only specialists use when it is generally agreed that we should cater to "
527:
At the moment they are not in tension because we use the common name, precision only comes into play if the common name clashes with another common name, or we are using descriptive names (see
885:. This seems to me to mean that all names are a matter of opinion because it is value laden, at the moment it is much easier to determine the name even if one does not like the outcome. --
1110:
We care about lots of encyclopedic values: accessibility, accuracy, precision, consistency, neutrality. Find the ideal balance between these values by seeing what reliable sources use.
281:
there is a correct title, it must be taken into consideration. That is, in deciding on the name, we should take into account the relative correctness of the candidate names.
1201:
315:
And that is the whole point of this proposal. Instead of saying "thou shalt use the most easily recognised name", we say "these are our values; do what you think best.
1169:
1183:
312:
argument as compelling. I would be happy to stand back and let the military history editors come to a decision. So long as they respect our values, I trust them.
136:
Re: "I would like to reply in more detail, but am not sure where to do so", I think here would be best, but I don't mind if others want to push it over to
215:
197:
In many areas there are no correct names, other than the names given in reliable English language sources. For example what is the correct name for
434:
Your example is good. But your assertion that "there is no such thing as correctness" is an extremist view that I have difficulty identifying with.
45:
1087:
Yes, there is a real elegance to this line of reasoning. If all your reliable sources on the Black Hole of Calcutta refer to that event as the
441:? If you infer that the people who made that decision, and continue to maintain it, give some weight to the fact that "Metallica" is the more
319:
point of this proposal is to document this accurately, rather than pretending that people only care what the most easily recognised name is.
437:
Metallica's fifth studio album is actually self-titled, but everyone calls it "The Black Album". How do you think it ended up at the title
223:
32:
17:
489:
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)
51:
a range of encyclopedic values are brought to bear in naming articles, and editors can be trusted to balance those values appropriately
397:
284:
With respect specifically to an article in your Soviet offensive example, my take on the naming dispute would be something like this:
916:
have I offered now? Lots. It is both inappropriate and impossible to enforce rules that the community has no intention of following.
83:
but would be better understood by many more readers with a longer title. I don't see that as bad, but it is something to consider.
1145:
which starts "But seriously, I see your point, but it has long been established that policies are descriptive not prescriptive.."
839:
With respect to your colour/color example, yes, having inconsistent spellings of "colour/color" does not score very well on our
1121:
We want to use reliable sources that share our values: it is wrong to base our naming decision on biased sources. Do you agree?
1209:
1191:
1042:
982:
950:
890:
816:
752:
694:
592:
540:
496:
405:
342:
259:
174:
111:
587:
I think that you are using "precision" in a different way from me. I mean precise as in succinct. what do you mean? --
777:
Septentrionalis brought it up at WP:NC#Disputed. I've also opened and subsequently closed a thread on his talk page.
532:
1160:
If yes then that is the name the page has -- unless it clashes with another page with the same name (see precision).
1205:
1187:
1038:
978:
946:
886:
812:
748:
690:
588:
536:
492:
401:
338:
255:
170:
107:
1178:
942:
1104:
All we care about is what name is most easily recognised. Assess this by seeing what reliable sources use.
682:
882:
528:
480:
88:
1213:
1195:
1071:
1057:
1046:
1023:
1000:
986:
954:
920:
894:
867:
820:
781:
756:
730:
712:
698:
653:
596:
566:
544:
514:
500:
455:
409:
375:
346:
323:
263:
178:
150:
115:
92:
77:
57:
53:. As long as that premise remains immutable I am happy to see the prose rewritten from the ground up.
1067:
1033:
1204:
for the latest instalment see the entry that starts "I subscribe to everything Húsönd says. ..." --
1130:
1054:
1020:
997:
917:
864:
778:
727:
709:
650:
563:
511:
452:
372:
320:
147:
69:
54:
294:
Correctness: Strictly speaking, the Soviet names are the only correct titles of these offensives.
73:
63:
I like it. It certainly seems an improvement on what we have now. I would use a bit more of the "
1202:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Since when did we agree with this wording?
438:
228:
1037:
change to the policy proved to be very beneficial to the policy and guidelines as a whole. --
678:
1062:
Yes, we use common usage of reliable sources in good English, not the web. This is not new.
970:
Stability: The title should not be changed to another controversial title without consensus.
219:
84:
797:
Accessibility: The title should recognisable and meaningful to as many readers as possible.
726:
English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources." I will update the section.
39:
Okay, it looks like the cat is out of the bag anyhow, so here it is. Following on from the
1063:
681:, yes we use neutral names for descriptive names but not for proper names. So it is the
1017:
1165:
218:, because in a general encyclopaedia like this the public are more likely to know the
104:
Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions/Archive 11#What we've all been overlooking (I think)
479:
This clashes with correctness in many areas the correct name. For example take the
473:
Precision: The title should precisely identify the topic and scope of our articles.
306:
Stability: There would need to be a good reason to change from the original title.
855:
value, but it would alienate readers who felt biased agains, scoring an F- for
647:
is a value; succinctness is good to the extent that it improves accessibility.
300:
Neutrality: The argument that one set of names is biased is extremely weak.
202:
1164:
reliable source criteria could not have been introduced in 2002 because
671:
Neutrality: A neutral point of view is a cornerstone of Knowledge (XXG).
686:
851:. Conversely, mandating a consistent spelling would score well on our
1084:
And we agree that this may not be "the most easily recognised name"?
1170:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions/Archive 11#Change to policy
198:
1200:
Another problem with "Correct" occurs with the diacritics, see
49:. As far as I'm concerned only the basic premise is fixed—that
43:
section above, I have drafted a proposed rewrite; enter via
1143:
Consistency: Relates articles should have related titles.
804:
Consistency: Relates articles should have related titles.
1141:
Replying to Hesperian last posting to the bullet point
449:
is a value that people use in choosing article titles.
191:
Correctness: The title should be correct and accurate.
636:. In our context you may take it as synonymous with
843:value. But it makes up for that by scoring well on
169:as it could quickly come to dominate this page. --
1184:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions/Proposal/Draft
1095:, then who are we to insist on pedantic accuracy?
689:) and was a creation of Victorian propaganda. --
167:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions/Proposal
138:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions/Proposal
8:
216:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
445:name, then you must concede the point that
46:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions/Proposal
33:Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Proposal
297:Precision: The names are equally precise.
144:workshopped informally for a while first.
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions
287:Accessibility: The western names are
7:
363:It would be a shame if the value of
303:Consistency: Not applicable here (?)
224:Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation
165:I am going to copy this section to
1157:Is there a common name in English?
398:Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster
291:more accessible to English people.
24:
1186:an essay rather than a policy. --
747:Where are you discussing this? --
685:even though it is archaic (now
1168:did not exist until 2003 (see
1118:Remaining issues around this:
367:came to dominate the value of
1:
1214:14:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
1196:10:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
1072:00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
1058:12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
1047:11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
1024:20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
1001:12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
987:11:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
955:10:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
921:13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
895:13:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
868:12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
821:11:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
782:13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
757:13:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
731:12:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
713:12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
699:11:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
654:22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
597:10:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
567:13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
545:13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
515:12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
501:11:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
456:23:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
410:10:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
376:13:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
347:13:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
324:12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
264:11:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
179:11:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
151:10:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
116:10:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
93:09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
78:06:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
68:been treated as overriding.--
58:23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
40:
1034:verifiable reliable sources
133:, under the present policy.
1229:
277:is one of our ideals, so
977:is I think a mistake. --
638:sufficiently unambiguous
562:resolved in other ways.
35:for further discussion:
1089:Black Hole of Calcutta
683:Black Hole of Calcutta
679:WP:NPOV#Article naming
483:a succinct title, its
481:Bosnian Genocide Case
222:by that name than as
883:Purpose of consensus
677:This is covered by
1093:Gulliver's Travels
1108:It ought to say:
1102:The policy says:
1070:
1053:comes to naming.
533:WP:Disambiguation
439:Metallica (album)
229:pocket (military)
1220:
1066:
643:I don't believe
487:formal title is
248:general audience
220:Battle of Berlin
129:conflicted area
1228:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1064:Septentrionalis
1018:Walter Siegmund
187:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1226:
1224:
1174:
1173:
1161:
1158:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1116:
1112:
1106:
1100:
1096:
1085:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
990:
989:
973:
972:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
913:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
873:
872:
871:
870:
834:
833:
832:
831:
824:
823:
807:
806:
800:
799:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
718:
717:
716:
715:
702:
701:
674:
673:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
648:
641:
624:does not mean
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
520:
519:
518:
517:
504:
503:
476:
475:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
450:
435:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
329:
328:
327:
326:
316:
313:
309:
308:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
282:
267:
266:
234:
233:
207:
206:
194:
193:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
145:
141:
134:
121:
120:
119:
118:
96:
95:
80:
37:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1225:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1179:WP:NC (flora)
1171:
1167:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1144:
1132:
1129:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1117:
1113:
1111:
1107:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1002:
999:
994:
993:
992:
991:
988:
984:
980:
975:
974:
971:
968:
967:
956:
952:
948:
944:
943:comment below
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
922:
919:
914:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
896:
892:
888:
884:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
869:
866:
862:
858:
857:accessibility
854:
850:
846:
845:accessibility
842:
838:
837:
836:
835:
828:
827:
826:
825:
822:
818:
814:
809:
808:
805:
802:
801:
798:
795:
794:
783:
780:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
758:
754:
750:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
732:
729:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
714:
711:
706:
705:
704:
703:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
672:
669:
668:
655:
652:
649:
646:
642:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
598:
594:
590:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
568:
565:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
516:
513:
508:
507:
506:
505:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
474:
471:
470:
457:
454:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
377:
374:
370:
369:accessibility
366:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
348:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
325:
322:
317:
314:
310:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
286:
285:
283:
280:
276:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
236:
235:
230:
225:
221:
217:
212:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
192:
189:
188:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
135:
132:
127:
126:
125:
124:
123:
122:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
99:
98:
97:
94:
90:
86:
81:
79:
75:
71:
66:
62:
61:
60:
59:
56:
52:
48:
47:
42:
36:
34:
26:
19:
1199:
1175:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1139:
1109:
1103:
1092:
1088:
1030:
1012:
969:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
803:
796:
670:
645:succinctness
644:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
529:WP:PRECISION
484:
472:
446:
442:
368:
364:
288:
278:
274:
251:
247:
246:, and for a
243:
239:
210:
190:
166:
137:
130:
64:
50:
44:
38:
31:Copied from
30:
1125:convention)
853:consistency
841:consistency
628:. It means
447:correctness
365:correctness
275:correctness
252:specialists
211:correctness
85:Vegaswikian
1068:PMAnderson
861:neutrality
849:neutrality
1131:Hesperian
1055:Hesperian
1013:stability
998:Hesperian
918:Hesperian
912:outcome."
865:Hesperian
779:Hesperian
728:Hesperian
710:Hesperian
651:Hesperian
564:Hesperian
512:Hesperian
453:Hesperian
373:Hesperian
321:Hesperian
148:Hesperian
131:right now
55:Hesperian
41:#Disputed
1115:contest.
634:specific
630:detailed
626:succinct
70:Kotniski
27:Proposal
941:See my
687:Kolkata
622:Precise
485:correct
443:correct
244:editors
240:readers
232:forces.
1021:(talk)
1011:I see
203:Zürich
535:). --
254:." --
250:over
242:over
65:ideal
16:<
1210:talk
1192:talk
1166:WP:V
1099:way:
1043:talk
983:talk
951:talk
891:talk
859:and
847:and
817:talk
753:talk
695:talk
593:talk
541:talk
531:and
497:talk
406:talk
343:talk
279:when
260:talk
199:Kiev
175:talk
112:talk
89:talk
74:talk
1206:PBS
1188:PBS
1039:PBS
979:PBS
947:PBS
887:PBS
813:PBS
749:PBS
691:PBS
632:or
589:PBS
537:PBS
493:PBS
402:PBS
339:PBS
289:far
256:PBS
201:or
171:PBS
108:PBS
1212:)
1194:)
1172:).
1045:)
985:)
953:)
945:--
893:)
863:.
819:)
755:)
697:)
595:)
543:)
499:)
491:--
408:)
345:)
262:)
177:)
114:)
91:)
76:)
1208:(
1190:(
1041:(
981:(
949:(
889:(
815:(
751:(
693:(
640:.
591:(
539:(
495:(
404:(
341:(
258:(
205:?
173:(
140:.
110:(
87:(
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.