137:
I can think of no reason why your proposal might not succeed, (although to date I have yet to be convinced that the proposed replacement is better than the current implementation) but for such a large change you will need to a very wide range of views to give such a large change any form of
155:
Atribution failed because it was a fundamental shift in how we do things it gave credance to fringe theories, proven falsehoods and outright lies providing they could be attributed to a published source. This is just documenting how and what is already happening.
45:
Article titles should be accessible to as many readers as possible. This principle is often phrased as "use the most common name" or "use the most easily recognised name". Knowledge (XXG) determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what
37:
Article titles should be accessible to as many readers as possible. This principle is often phrased as "use the most common name" or "use the most easily recognised name". Knowledge (XXG) determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what
127:
as it describes some of the paces where the proposed change was advertised). Roughly speaking talk archives 1-11 document the development and 12 onwards the implementation, poll and then roll back.
130:
Personally I was neither for or against the merger, and although I thought that merging and changing the meaning of the content at the same time was a mistake, I did not take part in the
35:
I'd like to see the principles include
Disambiguations and Redirects as they are a key function in the way articles are named. Additionally in the accessability section it has
68:
section; how would you do it differently? Yes, there probably needs to be more mention of redirects. I've taken a note of your other points; will work on them.
21:
64:
I see disambiguations and redirects as tools, or perhaps a different class of page, rather than distinct values. Disambiguation is treated in the
17:
119:
It starts with a number of well known, well meaning editors, deciding that things would be clear if WP:V and WP:OR were combined into
143:
131:
124:
112:
Before you spend too much time on this development, I suggest that if you are not already familiar with the saga of
139:
163:
147:
123:. They beavered a way for sometime and then implemented the change. That is when there was an explosion (see
99:
87:
72:
58:
160:
96:
84:
69:
55:
134:. Once if had failed I campaigned to get its status clarified as it was a source of confusion.
120:
113:
157:
93:
81:
52:
92:
I had a plug at incoprorating redirect into the piece about gulliviers travel
77:
what about a name change for the
Precision section to say
48:english language reliable sources call the subject
8:
40:reliable sources in English call the subject
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions
43:my emphasis, I think this should say
7:
28:
1:
164:14:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
148:15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
100:14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
88:14:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
73:10:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
59:08:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
182:
116:you read those archives.
79:Precision and Ambiguarty
108:A lesson from history
173:
181:
180:
176:
175:
174:
172:
171:
170:
110:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
179:
177:
169:
168:
167:
166:
138:legitimacy. --
109:
106:
105:
104:
103:
102:
90:
32:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
178:
165:
162:
159:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
145:
141:
135:
133:
128:
126:
122:
117:
115:
107:
101:
98:
95:
91:
89:
86:
83:
80:
76:
75:
74:
71:
67:
63:
62:
61:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
42:
41:
30:
23:
19:
136:
129:
125:this section
118:
111:
78:
65:
47:
44:
39:
36:
34:
70:Hesperian
66:Precision
31:Thoughts
22:Proposal
20: |
121:WP:ATT
114:WP:ATT
161:garra
97:garra
85:garra
56:garra
16:<
158:Gnan
144:talk
132:Poll
94:Gnan
82:Gnan
53:Gnan
140:PBS
146:)
51:.
142:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.