Just speaking as one small editor (and user! I read as well as writing!)
primarily in the Esperanta Vikipedio (though I've also made some
contributions to others, probably more to Swahili than anything else besides
English), with reference to Tim Starling's statements, I will be less
fervently supportive of Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general if proposed
Wikipedias that have the level of support Ladino, Neapolitan and Waray-Waray
have are not activated. I don't know much about the innards of
Wikipolicymaking, but I do have some idea what effect this "stagnation" or
whatever you want to call it will have on my loyalties and interest level.
And I'm probably not alone among those of us who do not spend all our days
posting to this list. ;-)
Haruo
I am not quite awake, so I forgot to change the subject line. Sorry...
On 9/24/05, Ros' Haruo <rosharuo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ausir wrote:
>
> Well, I would say that if a word exists that is understandable on both
> sides of the Ocean, even if used not as often as other forms, it should be
> preferred. Other than that, however, I see nothing wrong with using either
> British, American, Canadian, Australian in any article.
>
> I think that is a good solution, so long as the word chosen actually
> means the same thing on both sides of the Ocean. "Hood" is a part of a
> motorcar on both sides of the River, but not the same part. (Or at least
> this was true thirty years ago when I was becoming aware of such
> distinctions.)
> Haruo
>
--
Meet the Whole World Halfway — Learn and Use Esperanto!
http://www.scn.org/~lilandbr/lang_tax.html — http://lernu.net
Ausir wrote:
Well, I would say that if a word exists that is understandable on both sides
of the Ocean, even if used not as often as other forms, it should be
preferred. Other than that, however, I see nothing wrong with using either
British, American, Canadian, Australian in any article.
I think that is a good solution, so long as the word chosen actually means
the same thing on both sides of the Ocean. "Hood" is a part of a motorcar on
both sides of the River, but not the same part. (Or at least this was true
thirty years ago when I was becoming aware of such distinctions.)
Haruo
In reply to Gerrit and Ray:
>It's clear that Jack would not have defended his
>position with such enthusiasm if no one had answered.
Correct. My remark about excessive posting was not
limited to Jack.
>Most keyboards have a feature which is consistent
with >having a life. It's the delete button. Some of
us are >even so advanced that we can delete several
messages >at once. :-)
>Don't complain about messages; the subject is clear,
>you know what thread it's a part of, and you are very
>welcome to delete any message you like.
With the enormous output of mails some participants
produce here and the impossibility of reading all of
them, important arguments can be overlooked easily. On
top of that, the arguments of members who don't have
the time to write a dozen or more e-mails per day are
sometimes drowned out by an overly productive
minority.
I've sure heard about that delete button but I think
it can't replace a sound culture of discussion. In an
oral conversation you can't talk 80% of the time.
Here, I sometimes get the impression that some people
believe the more (and the longer) e-mails they write,
the more right they are.
Sorry, I just needed to get rid of this.
Have a nice weekend!
Arbeo
___________________________________________________________
Was denken Sie über E-Mail? Wir hören auf Ihre Meinung: http://surveylink.yahoo.com/wix/p0379378.aspx
Hi all,
I sent this message and various
others some weeks ago to
Wikitech list which is the place
where one is supposed to send
requests for new language wikis
after these have enough support
for approval.
I also emailed some of the Developers
directly, and have yet to receive any
response. Granted that they have
a heavy workload and they do the
supporting of tech issues as they
are able...
But when the request was made
months ago and when all requirements
seem to have been met, and if there
are other requirements, I'd like to know
so we can keep making progress on
this, something should be done...
What would be the next step after
getting a new language approved and
requesting the help of the developers?
Thanks for your attention.
Jay B.
[[meta:User:ILVI]]
ilooy.gaon(a)gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ilooy <ilooy.gaon(a)gmail.com>
Date: 19.09.2005 22:49
Subject: Approved requests for new languages page listing Ladino
To: wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org
Hi,
Now that on Meta the
Approved requests for new languages
page includes the Ladino language
I'd like to request the help of one
of our developers in setting up the
subdomains:
http://lad.wikipedia.org/
and
http://lad.wiktionary.org/
I'd also like to request admin access
as things get underway in those wikis.
Could someone help out with these
tasks.
With much appreciation and many thanks,
Jay B.
[[meta:User:ILVI]]
ilooy.gaon(a)gmail.com
--
--
ilooy.gaon(a)gmail.com
Now here's a bloke who is making sense (although personally I would have referred to it as the rubbish bin because it is neither a can nor does it contain dust). In fact a a thread could perhaps be started on this subject alone - we could go on for the next two months without a problem!
pippu d'angelo
>4. Re: Wikipedia English English (Michael Snow)
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:56:31 -0700
From: Michael Snow
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia English English
Hi. Could somebody please remove the pots and kettles (whether black or any other colour/color) from the cooker/stove and deposit them in the dustbin/trashcan, and end this discussion?
>--Michael Snow
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3
Scríobh Jack & Naree:
> Have you seen the "Scot's English" one? Do you not call that
Balkanisation?
If you're talking about sco.wikipedia - they don't even claim to be an
English dialect. And to be honest, the language on sco is about as similar
to the language on en, that ga is to gd.
I write all my articles in Australian English, but I think that your
proposal is just daft. Honestly ;-). Reading the odd Americanised word
doesn't fill me with seething rage, just like reading the odd Australianised
word hopefully doesn't fill my American brothers with murderous hatred.
Sláinte,
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikimedia.org>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: [work] Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 32
> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikipedia-l-owner(a)Wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Wikipedia English English (Jack & Naree)
> 2. Re: Wikipedia English English (Alphax)
> 3. Re: Wikipedia English English (Jack & Naree)
> 4. Re: Wikipedia English English (Alphax)
> 5. Re: Wikipedia English English (Jack & Naree)
> 6. Re: Wikipedia English English (Jack & Naree)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:23:07 +0100
> From: Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
> To: andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk, wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <c822ae8d050919032327091418(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Yes, it was me, I did rant, I do apologise, but I'm just pissed off with
> proper English being treated like this.
> You have Wikipedia in Klingon, in tiny tribal languages, and now in Scots
> (and I'm Scottish btw) - which is basically as similar to correct English
as
> American-English is - at least I think most native English-speakers can
> probably read it.
> "- I think we can safely consider this as not providing a great deal of
> useful insight into our language policy :-)"
> Why not? Ok, I ranted, but this not an illegitimate point, why should we
> (and I say that because you have a ".uk" address) be forced to accept
> Americanisms?
> If you're British, do think we should start changing our spellings to
> American ones? Start changing our grammar too?
> someone at Wikipedia ages ago wrote to me that he thought it was fine for
> articles in the English section to remain in the dialect relevent to their
> subject matter - he basically said, if it's about the UK it can be in
> English, but everything else is to be in American-English, but called
> English - and he said he was British!
> I mean there are several issues here: cultural imperialism, ambiguation
> (because of the many differences in American-English and English usage),
and
> English learners learning to spell incorrectly and talk like Americans -
why
> is it wrong to resist that?
> On 19/09/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 19/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Does your e-mail have a point?
> >
> > I would guess this is the same person who ranted at the en: Help Desk
> > yesterday about the issue.
> >
> > As this rant included (edited highlights) -
> >
> > "It's bad enough that the British invention of HTML won't let you type
> > colour correctly in tags, without having the world's largest free
> > online dictionary purporting to display information in English, but in
> > fact displaying it in a dialect of English - we've got Wikipedia in
> > Scots, Wikipedia in Middle English, but when you click on Wikipedia
> > English, you get spelling errors, sloppy grammar and garbled syntax;
> > in short the American dialect of English, trying to hijack the term
> > English. ... I want Wikipedia "English" to be partitioned in to
> > "English" and "American". We can copy and paste and run spellcheck to
> > iron out the mangled American illiteracy, no worries. ... It is a
> > scandal to actively promote the butchering of English..."
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:53:55 +0930
> From: Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <432E91BB.5080301(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> (note: I've split this into paragraphs for readability)
>
> Jack wrote:
> > I want American English to have a separate Wikipedia from English
> > English - this would mean copying
> >
> > I typed it in a hurry at the end of my shift with a view to
> > responding to any response, later.
> >
> > I've placed a more detailed post on the helpdesk page. I think,
> > however, that it's apt that I should go into even more depth here.
> >
> > I've asked about English on Wikipedia before and been told that they
> > think it's acceptable for English articles to be in a mish-mash of
> > dialects and spellings; but having seen the range of ludicrous
> > languages available - including variant forms of English: Scots
> > English and Middle English etc... I've now decided I must make a
> > request and campaign properly for American English to be given a
> > seperate Wikipedia language from (English) English.
> >
>
> I must remind viewers who are still with us that Balkanisation Is Evil.
>
> > It's simply infuriating and offensive for the misspellings of a
> > dialect of English to take precedence over the standard language -
> > I'm sure Spanish, French and Portuguese speakers would feel
> > similarly; it's cultural imperialism.
> >
> > If you have different forms of Chinese Wikipedia (I'm a graduate of
> > Jap & Chi so I'm aware of xyz); if you have Wikipedias for dialects
> > and older forms of English; if you Wikipedias for countries and
> > languages with far smaller populations, economic/political importance
> > and internet presences; then the English of the British Isles and
> > Commonwealth - the standard and original form of English - simply
> > *has* to be the only form of English that can use the term "English"
> > on Wikipedia.
> >
> > Some might say that it is "British English", this term is fallacious
> > (even if you can find it in a dictionary) no English, British,
> > British Isles or even Commonwealth native understands or recognises
> > the term - it is both meaningless and fallacious: there are no
> > "British English" speakers in the world - there are English
> > (nationality) English (language) speakers, Welsh English speakers,
> > Scottish English speakers, Irish English speakers, Cornish English
> > speakers and so on...
> >
> > Whereas the term "American English" is not.
> >
> > When I go to Wikipedia English, and type a search for "colour" I
> > should not expect to be redirected to "color" which is a recent
> > spelling of a dialect of English that has arisen over the last couple
> > of centuries perhaps - it is simply *not* *English* it is
> > *American-English*. I'm more than happy for American-English speakers
> > to have an American-English wikipedia and have all their weird and
> > wonderful spellings and vocabulary - and it may well turn out to be
> > the biggest wiki; but I don't want to select Wikipedia English and
> > type in "Aubergine" and get "Eggplant"; "Nappy" and get "Diaper"; or
> > "Tap" and get "Faucet", it's simply unacceptable, and against the
> > spirit of multilingualism and accuracy that wikipedia is supposed to
> > strive for. Hence I want to campaign in all seriousness that The
> > English Wikipedia is duplicated, and one is called American-English,
> > the other remaining English, and the task of correcting spelling,
> > vocab and grammar can begin.
> >
>
> I agree completely. Furthurmore, I feel that we shall need an Australian
> English Wikipedia to handle the many words in Australian English which
> differ from English English (and possibly Queensland English, New South
> Wales English, et. al), a South African English Wikipedia to accomodate
> the heavy use of Afrikaans, a New Zealand English Wikipedia to account
> for the lack of vowels, a Canadian English Wikipedia to account for the
> number of French words, a Canadian French Wikipedia to complement it,
> and a Singlish Wikipedia because it has a funny name.
>
> Here's a far better idea: Let's go back to Proto-Indo-European. Imagine
> the amount of server space we could save!
>
> Conversely, imagine a Beowulf cluster of English Wikipedias!
>
> > The Campaign for an English Wikipedia is not about Britain (the
> > fourth largest economy in the world, a population of about 60m, 55%
> > of whom are online), it's also about a whole host of other countries
> > and regions (over a billion people) that do not use American-English,
> > but use English instead as a lingua franca (many with complete
> > fluency):
> >
> <snip overly long list>
> > The term Commonwealth English is therefore also apt, but
American-English
> > has no right to usurp the title English, from English! Wikipedia should
> > reflect this.
> >
>
> I find your theories interesting/intriguing and wish to subscribe to
> your newsletter/journal.
>
> --
> Alphax | /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:28:49 +0100
> From: Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
> To: palnatoke(a)gmail.com, wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <c822ae8d05091903286779959(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 19/09/05, Ole Andersen <palnatoke(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 19/09/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would guess this is the same person who ranted at the en: Help Desk
> > > yesterday about the issue.
> > >
> > > As this rant included (edited highlights) -
> > >
> > ...
> > > I want Wikipedia "English" to be partitioned in to
> > > "English" and "American".
> >
> > It could be done, of course. We could also have Australian, Indian and
> > South African English. If we wanted to do so, that is.
>
> I don't think there is significant difference - I think it's really a
split
> between "Commonwealth English" and "American English".
> The cultural ties - even down to soap operas on telly mean that Aussies
and
> Pommes and South Africans have much more affinity and familiarity with
each
> other, and this also extends to language.
> When it comes to Americans, however, there really is a gulf of
> (mis)understanding (and misspelling).
> But I think you miss the point in that - I'm not talking about making a
> "British English" wikipedia (In fact I don't believe the £British English£
> article should exist, becuase the term does not make any sense outside
> America) - I want the English Wikipedia to be reclaimed by English or
> Commonwealth English speakers, and the Americans given their own "/am-en"
> American-English wikipedia.
>
> --
> > http://palnatoke.org * Ole Andersen, Copenhagen, DK
> > CV: http://palnatoke.org/CV.doc
> > ICQ: 86989486 phone: +45 22 34 72 92
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:59:12 +0930
> From: Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <432E92F8.2060609(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Jack & Naree wrote:
> > Yes, it was me, I did rant, I do apologise, but I'm just pissed off with
> > proper English being treated like this.
> >
> > You have Wikipedia in Klingon, in tiny tribal languages, and now in
Scots
> > (and I'm Scottish btw) - which is basically as similar to correct
English as
> > American-English is - at least I think most native English-speakers can
> > probably read it.
> >
>
> Actually, we don't have a Wikipedia in Klingon. It's a Wikicity, which
> is hosted by Wikia, *not* the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> BTW, have you considered contributing to sco.wikipedia?
>
> > "- I think we can safely consider this as not providing a great deal of
> > useful insight into our language policy :-)"
> > Why not? Ok, I ranted, but this not an illegitimate point, why should
we
> > (and I say that because you have a ".uk" address) be forced to accept
> > Americanisms?
>
> Really? I thought it was en.wikipedia.org...
>
> > If you're British, do think we should start changing our spellings to
> > American ones? Start changing our grammar too?
> > someone at Wikipedia ages ago wrote to me that he thought it was fine
for
> > articles in the English section to remain in the dialect relevent to
their
> > subject matter - he basically said, if it's about the UK it can be in
> > English, but everything else is to be in American-English, but called
> > English - and he said he was British!
>
> Actually, the policy is (or at least was):
>
> * If subject of article is British (or other Commonwealth
> English)-related, use Commonwealth English.
> * If subject of article is USian, use US English
> * If neither applies, majority style (in case both are used) of original
> author is preferred.
>
> > I mean there are several issues here: cultural imperialism, ambiguation
> > (because of the many differences in American-English and English usage),
and
> > English learners learning to spell incorrectly and talk like Americans -
why
> > is it wrong to resist that?
> >
>
> You are welcome to create your own fork of the site in Commonwealth
> English, provided you comply with the GFDL.
>
> --
> Alphax | /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:39:13 +0100
> From: Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <c822ae8d05091903397112343(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Cool, mockery is for trolls.
> This is not about Balkanisation, it's about separating American-English
> from English.
> But come to think of it - yes, have one for every variation you like, and
> let natural selection take care of the rest. Just as long as English is
> English, and not American.
> Have you seen the "Scot's English" one? Do you not call that
Balkanisation?
> If you want to have a legitimate criteria for a language, a different
> orthography has got to be a clear one.
> In English there are two - American and non-American.
> Orthography is the main issue, meaning is another.
> If you want to go academic - which is surely the best way to back this
> whole argument up, you should scan this (ironically american) leading
> insitute of linguistic research:
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=eng
> On 19/09/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > (note: I've split this into paragraphs for readability)
> >
> > Jack wrote:
> > > I want American English to have a separate Wikipedia from English
> > > English - this would mean copying
> > >
> > > I typed it in a hurry at the end of my shift with a view to
> > > responding to any response, later.
> > >
> > > I've placed a more detailed post on the helpdesk page. I think,
> > > however, that it's apt that I should go into even more depth here.
> > >
> > > I've asked about English on Wikipedia before and been told that they
> > > think it's acceptable for English articles to be in a mish-mash of
> > > dialects and spellings; but having seen the range of ludicrous
> > > languages available - including variant forms of English: Scots
> > > English and Middle English etc... I've now decided I must make a
> > > request and campaign properly for American English to be given a
> > > seperate Wikipedia language from (English) English.
> > >
> >
> > I must remind viewers who are still with us that Balkanisation Is Evil.
> >
> > > It's simply infuriating and offensive for the misspellings of a
> > > dialect of English to take precedence over the standard language -
> > > I'm sure Spanish, French and Portuguese speakers would feel
> > > similarly; it's cultural imperialism.
> > >
> > > If you have different forms of Chinese Wikipedia (I'm a graduate of
> > > Jap & Chi so I'm aware of xyz); if you have Wikipedias for dialects
> > > and older forms of English; if you Wikipedias for countries and
> > > languages with far smaller populations, economic/political importance
> > > and internet presences; then the English of the British Isles and
> > > Commonwealth - the standard and original form of English - simply
> > > *has* to be the only form of English that can use the term "English"
> > > on Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Some might say that it is "British English", this term is fallacious
> > > (even if you can find it in a dictionary) no English, British,
> > > British Isles or even Commonwealth native understands or recognises
> > > the term - it is both meaningless and fallacious: there are no
> > > "British English" speakers in the world - there are English
> > > (nationality) English (language) speakers, Welsh English speakers,
> > > Scottish English speakers, Irish English speakers, Cornish English
> > > speakers and so on...
> > >
> > > Whereas the term "American English" is not.
> > >
> > > When I go to Wikipedia English, and type a search for "colour" I
> > > should not expect to be redirected to "color" which is a recent
> > > spelling of a dialect of English that has arisen over the last couple
> > > of centuries perhaps - it is simply *not* *English* it is
> > > *American-English*. I'm more than happy for American-English speakers
> > > to have an American-English wikipedia and have all their weird and
> > > wonderful spellings and vocabulary - and it may well turn out to be
> > > the biggest wiki; but I don't want to select Wikipedia English and
> > > type in "Aubergine" and get "Eggplant"; "Nappy" and get "Diaper"; or
> > > "Tap" and get "Faucet", it's simply unacceptable, and against the
> > > spirit of multilingualism and accuracy that wikipedia is supposed to
> > > strive for. Hence I want to campaign in all seriousness that The
> > > English Wikipedia is duplicated, and one is called American-English,
> > > the other remaining English, and the task of correcting spelling,
> > > vocab and grammar can begin.
> > >
> >
> > I agree completely. Furthurmore, I feel that we shall need an Australian
> > English Wikipedia to handle the many words in Australian English which
> > differ from English English (and possibly Queensland English, New South
> > Wales English, et. al), a South African English Wikipedia to accomodate
> > the heavy use of Afrikaans, a New Zealand English Wikipedia to account
> > for the lack of vowels, a Canadian English Wikipedia to account for the
> > number of French words, a Canadian French Wikipedia to complement it,
> > and a Singlish Wikipedia because it has a funny name.
> >
> > Here's a far better idea: Let's go back to Proto-Indo-European. Imagine
> > the amount of server space we could save!
> >
> > Conversely, imagine a Beowulf cluster of English Wikipedias!
> >
> > > The Campaign for an English Wikipedia is not about Britain (the
> > > fourth largest economy in the world, a population of about 60m, 55%
> > > of whom are online), it's also about a whole host of other countries
> > > and regions (over a billion people) that do not use American-English,
> > > but use English instead as a lingua franca (many with complete
> > > fluency):
> > >
> > <snip overly long list>
> > > The term Commonwealth English is therefore also apt, but
> > American-English
> > > has no right to usurp the title English, from English! Wikipedia
should
> > > reflect this.
> > >
> >
> > I find your theories interesting/intriguing and wish to subscribe to
> > your newsletter/journal.
> >
> > --
> > Alphax | /"\
> > Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> > OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
> > http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:44:11 +0100
> From: Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <c822ae8d0509190344505522cf(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> >
> > Actually, we don't have a Wikipedia in Klingon.
>
> that's a surprise
>
> BTW, have you considered contributing to sco.wikipedia?
>
> no
>
> >
> > Really? I thought it was en.wikipedia.org...
>
> - I think we can safely consider this as not providing a great deal of
> useful insight into our language policy :-)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
> - Show quoted text -
> my turn to do a "..."
>
>
> >
> > Actually, the policy is (or at least was):
> >
> > * If subject of article is British (or other Commonwealth
> > English)-related, use Commonwealth English.
> > * If subject of article is USian, use US English
> > * If neither applies, majority style (in case both are used) of original
> > author is preferred.
>
> And what of "Aubergines" and "Eggplants"? "Colour" and "Color"
>
> > I mean there are several issues here: cultural imperialism, ambiguation
> > > (because of the many differences in American-English and English
usage),
> > and
> > > English learners learning to spell incorrectly and talk like
Americans -
> > why
> > > is it wrong to resist that?
> > >
> >
> > You are welcome to create your own fork of the site in Commonwealth
> > English, provided you comply with the GFDL.
>
> Happy to do so, but what I really want is a fork called
"American-English".
>
> --
> > Alphax | /"\
> > Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> > OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
> > http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> End of Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 32
> *******************************************
>
>
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Jack & Naree wrote:
>
>>What seems clear is that Mark has been consistently argumentative,
>>facetious, and fallacious; and even more so since this post.
>>
>>
>Hah.
>
>
>>Not satisfied with trying to start a "row", he wants to ban me for not
>>agreeing with him.
>>
>>
>Ban you? No, that was someone else. I just want you to leave
>peacefully, or quit being a troll.
>
Hi. Could somebody please remove the pots and kettles (whether black or
any other colour/color) from the cooker/stove and deposit them in the
dustbin/trashcan, and end this discussion?
--Michael Snow
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> To explain to the people on the Wiktionary mailinglist where this
>> comes from, there is a huge debate on the Wikipedia-l mailinglist
>> about having a seperate English and American English wikipedia.
>
>
> I wouldn't characterize it as huge. One person made the proposal, and
> no-one who replied considered it realistic.
>
>> In the plans for Ultimate Wiktionary there are three ways in which
>> words can be destinguished as being of a particular orthography. I
>> will describe these here and hope to use the energy of this
>> discussion for this question that needs a resolution at some stage.
>>
>>
>> Please let me know what you think and particularly why.
>
>
> It's premature to get into this kind of debate before the software is
> in place, but I suspect that the preferred option will vary from one
> term to the next.
>
> Ec
Hoi,
Ultimate Wiktionary will use relational data that will be served by
Wikidata. With related data it is not really possible for behaviour to
be arbitrary different from one term to the next. As I mentioned there
are three basic choises. As far as I can see, there are only variations
possible within the three choises that I mentioned. The point with a
data design is that it is the basis for what the functionality will be like.
Waiting untill the database has been implemented is not that great a
strategy. It is akin to building a house and only decide where the
windows, doors and rooms will be after the completion of the house. It
is much better to look at the design now, while we still can change
things relatively easy. We are now still at the stage where we still
change the "house" on paper.
Thanks,
GerardM