[Wiktionary-l] Re: De-capitalisation-isation

Sun Jun 27 09:52:17 UTC 2004

Andrew Dunbar wrote:

>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote: >
>cookfire wrote:
>  
>
>>>Timwi wrote:
>>>I wouldn't call it that. In fact I'm glad you
>>>would want to help us with this issue. It's
>>>something we have been asking for since the 
>>>beginning of the English Wiktionary. It wasn't
>>>possible back then  because of other priorities
>>>for the developers.
>>>It's a pity there is such vocal opposition to it
>>>now and I feel bad because I started by 
>>>objecting. It is true that there might be even
>>>better ways of dealing with the issues, but I'm
>>>sure that flipping a switch is going to be a 
>>>lot easier to accomplish than having to add
>>>functionality to the software to do it in those
>>>better ways.
>>>      
>>>
>
>There's no need to be short-sighted and settle for
>quick fixes just because they are "a lot easier". I'm
>sure that's not the kind of thinking employed by the
>founders of the OED or Websters.
>
>If Wiktionary is a good project, and I'm sure we all
>believe it is, then it will survive long enough for
>the
>real fixes to come along. Cleaning up after the side-
>effects of the quick fix and cleaning up again in the
>future when a solid fix comes along will be a
>pointless
>drain on the time and patience of the contributors.
>
>Also, going with the quick fix now will reduce our
>chances of getting the developers to implement a solid
>fix later on, because they will believe they had
>already fixed the problem.
>
>  
>
>>>Polyglot
>>>      
>>>
>>How a vote is phrased can make a difference to its
>>success.  Putting three questions into one can be a
>>recipe for failure;
>>it gives opponents three separate issues that can be
>>used to oppose the whole thing.
>>    
>>
>
>Or, those you label "opponents" might have actually
>agreed on the main point, and taken issue with what
>else was going to happen because of the change.
>Since this is what they have said I don't know why you
>feel the need to put it the way you have.
>
It's a fact that the vote lumped three issues together.  The fact 
becomes that they voted no on all three points.

>>The opposition was as much to the proposed script as
>>to de-capitalizing the first letter.
>>    
>>
>
>Or, the "opposition" was not opposed to
>de-capitalizing
>the first letter in a better way, and were much more
>opposed to the script, depending on which member of
>"the opposition", since each was an individual with a
>different perspective.
>
My support is for the first letter de-capitalization.  I have no 
attachment to the script.  It looks as though it would do the job, but 
another method could work just as well.

>>I first proposed freeing up the first letter on Dec.
>>18, 2002, and I'm still convinced that it's the best
>>way to go.
>>Unfortunately the principal opponent doesn't seem to
>>understand dictionaries.
>>    
>>
>
>It may be even more unfortunate that some feel the
>need
>to put down others rather than improve their arguments
>or consider that other opinions might be valid and not
>just the "contrary ignoramuses" who have been depicted
>in the email I'm replying to now.
>  
>
"Ignoramus" is your word.