|
We don't use other organisation's styles but use our own MoS. Mo ainm~Talk 07:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using both, hence "styled as..." after the text using our own MoS. Nothing in the MoS to say that's a no-no, and MoS isn't policy anyway. What exactly is your objection to the potential addition? — Jon C.ॐ 10:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, MoS is a guideline. The MoS can be ignored if we are adding something of benefit or a consensus forms for something that should ignore it as an exception. Mabuska (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My 2c is that the addition here is beneficial and in keeping with the MOS. --RA (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See also the part of WP:LDERRY that states "Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the organisation; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry." — Jon C.ॐ 21:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MoS is used to avoid constant renaming of articles (and more), keep a neutral point of view, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute. Mo ainm~Talk 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... yes, I know. Did you read any of the above? — Jon C.ॐ 14:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it's talking about a specific event, I think including the official nomenclature used is pretty useful. --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jon that's for proper names not stylisations that's why all the examples given are actual proper names. Mo ainm~Talk 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper name for the UK CoC 2012 is Derry~Londonderry, as evidenced by its official website. — Jon C.ॐ 08:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mo ainm, as you've now reverted again ("per imos" – groan) I hope to see you here soon. There are four people here that agree that the addition is useful, so I'll be expecting you to explain why you think your own opinion overrides the current (albeit limited) TP consensus. — Jon C.ॐ 11:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Entity" refers to the name of the entity being talked about, that's why all the examples refer to the actual entity. Derry doesn't call itself Derry~Londonderry, that's what the "Culture Company 2013" call it. The entity in this case is "Culture Company 2013", what's so hard to understand? Mo ainm~Talk 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What else does WP:LDERRY say? "The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate." which heavily implies it can be judged on an article per article basis depending on its merits. I'll also refer to WP:NOTUNANIMITY and WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, the latter of which clearly states: "Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no more common in deletion than in any other area." Mabuska (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So if Derry wins the City of Culture award, it is appropriate to discuss the naming dispute? Because that was a major factor in its selection, or why? And forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you seem to suggest there is a "local consensus" to suspend a guideline here. I don't see any, just a couple of editors whipping up what Jon C on another page called " the hysteria over the (London)derry thing". If you want to do a head-count, you can add me to the opposes. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FTR, here is what I said at IMOS: When 2013 comes to have a properly written section in the UK City of Culture article, it should of course include the City of Culture 2013 website designation (but without that ridiculous word "stylised"). But edit-warring over the very brief lead of the article as it now stands is poor form. Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only linked to the naming dispute because I thought it might be a useful one to follow. "(as Derry~Londonderry)" without a wikilink is fine with me too. — Jon C.ॐ 10:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mabuksa, rather than quoting Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which isn't relevant, or Wikipedia:What is consensus? which is an essay, you might be better off quoting Wikipedia:Consensus which is policy, and it reads "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". Mo ainm~Talk 11:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually other guidelines link to those article sub-sections Mo ainm so they apply to more than just deletion for admins
, but if that is how you want to dodge around them then ok. it would appear.
- In response to Scolaire, the four of us who agree with Jon's proposed edit (including him) you can agree come from quite contrasting political thoughts, which makes it something quite unique on Wikipedia that they (in its entirety or not) see it as beneficial to this article. Though i would agree that a wider consensus would be required, and as with all Troubles related articles, outside input should always be sought anyways.
- Any edit-warring is between Jon and Mo ainm. Mabuska (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Scolaire's comments on usage of the word "stylised". Mabuska (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiousity Scolaire, in your second post, where you basically supporting Jon's proposal but with condition (i.e. omitting stylised)? Mabuska (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this, but for the moment I'm happy to say it again: I do not and will not ever support a "proposal" to add 62 characters to the lead of an article merely to push a POV, no matter what way that POV is dressed up in the edit summary or on the talk page. I support anything that improves articles. This article (by which, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I don't mean the lead) could be improved by researching and writing about such things as who was responsible for the bid, why this city was chosen, what events are planned, what aspects of culture will be promoted, how it will benefit the people of the city and a host of other things. In the course of such improvement, the designation of "Derry-Londonderry" would naturally be mentioned, and if the write-up was done properly, that mention would be uncontroversial. But when the only attempt at "improvement" is that 62-character parenthesis stuck in at the end of the lead, which happens to touch on a subject of historical and recent controversy on WP, and just happens to be done within days of certain people who might have spoiled the "rough consensus" being topic-banned, then I don't even consider it as a "proposal", never mind support it. Does that satisfy your curiosity? Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's four for, two against. Anyone else? — Jon C.ॐ 15:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you not make some intelligent comment on what I said above instead of "four for, two against"? This isn't Final Score! Scolaire (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly - take a chill pill. Secondly - you've made many good points. Thirdly - 2 editors who would quite possibly be for Jon's addition were also topic-banned with the 3 who would no doubt be against it - so that point i feel is moot. From what i see my "curiousity" question still made a correct assumption as you have made it clear you can agree it as i said above with condition. The condition obviously being the write-up. Lastly i would rather just have Derry~Londonderry stated in place of Jon's proposed "Derry (as Derry~Londonderry)", seeing as the name dispute is mentioned in the article and no point adding the City of Culture variant after Derry when we can just pipelink it to Derry. Mabuska (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly - take a chill pill? Because I asked for an intelligent response? That's a new one! Secondly - no, the fact that three other editors were topic-banned does not make the timing of the edit any less suspicious, especially when the editor involved appears to have a fondness for doing maths. I'm sure you've read the admins' comments. What's gone on here would have been quite enough for a couple more topic-bans to be handed out, if they were aware of it. Thirdly - I've made many good points, but I doubt you've even read any of the others, given your response. Did you read the bit where I said "I'm happy to say it again: I do not and will not ever support a "proposal" to add 62 characters to the lead of an article merely to push a POV"? Finally - what you would "rather" is entirely predictable, but it is "moot" given that there is not a consensus - even a "rough" one - for this silly and POV edit. Scolaire (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously sit back and chill out. Your exploding over next to nothing on a simple discussion making all sorts of accusations that are neither here nor there. Chill. If anyone merited a topic-ban considering recent events it would be Jon and Mo ainm for slow edit-warring. Mabuska (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to my last sentence - unless of course that was what you were referring to. Mabuska (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I was referring to. Not that I'd want to see either of them topic-banned; it was just an observation.
- And I'm not "exploding". And I don't need to "chill". It's a discussion. I'm discussing. Scolaire (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Scolaire, I didn't "make some intelligent comment" because I see no need to engage with someone that, out of nowhere, is intent on accusing me of being some POV-warrior with a nefarious agenda, which I really don't appreciate. Mabuska, I also don't really understand why you keep accusing me of edit-warring when I've reverted a grand total of twice and not at all since this current discussion (/unnecessary mud-slinging) started. — Jon C.ॐ 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't we all just walk away from it, then? There's nothing to be gained from perpetuating it. Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to discuss, but you'd need to drop all the bad faith stuff first. I'm not here to ram anything down anyone's throats, promise. — Jon C.ॐ 18:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happier to drop it. Nothing's going to come of it. Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See, I'm not. I suppose we need some outside opinions as this is going nowhere. — Jon C.ॐ 08:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Jon - it was the result of a misunderstanding over who Scolaire was talking about to which they have since clarified above, it is nothing personal against you. "Edit-warring" was more of a figure of speech in this case.
- @ Scolaire - so how exactly in any write up would "Derry~Londonderry" merit mention as you stated above? Mabuska (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First do the write up! That will dictate how the designation is referred to. If you start with "how can I get "Derry-Londonderry" into this? and then try to build the write up around that, you're doomed to failure. You have to have some interest in the actual topic of the actual article, or you can't improve it. That's why I propose to drop the current discussion until somebody shows a committment to doing that. Scolaire (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all stop with the assumptions of whether we have an actual interest in the article or not. This discussion is one about what Jon wanted to add in. All i am asking for the point of discussion is how exactly would it fit into a write-up you envisage? Mabuska (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
