Revision as of 16:22, 15 February 2012 editBrews ohare (talk | contribs)47,831 edits →Primary sources: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:06, 15 February 2012 edit undoBrews ohare (talk | contribs)47,831 edits →Primary sources: Discussion openedNext edit → | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Hi Blueboar: On my talk page you bring up the use of ] on WP, and suggest journal and newspaper articles are in fact treated on WP as ]. That view is not obvious from the WP documentation, and strikes me as unlikely to achieve the goal of objectivity that I'd take to be the purpose underlying emphasis on secondary sources. It's not just about refusing personal ruminations. I wonder if you are happy with this unfortunate situation, or are simply resigned to it? Is there anything to be gained by trying to sharpen this distinction on the policy page? ] (]) 16:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC) | Hi Blueboar: On my talk page you bring up the use of ] on WP, and suggest journal and newspaper articles are in fact treated on WP as ]. That view is not obvious from the WP documentation, and strikes me as unlikely to achieve the goal of objectivity that I'd take to be the purpose underlying emphasis on secondary sources. It's not just about refusing personal ruminations. I wonder if you are happy with this unfortunate situation, or are simply resigned to it? Is there anything to be gained by trying to sharpen this distinction on the policy page? ] (]) 16:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Failing any guidance from you on this matter, I opened . ] (]) 19:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:06, 15 February 2012
Welcome to Blueboar's talk page... I am away from my computer right now, and can not respond to you. Please leave a message at the sound of the beep.....
(Please note that I regularly delete messages after I have read them. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on the page, it means I have seen it. I do not archive old messages. If you need to retrieve something posted on this user page, you can find it in the page's history.)
BEEEEEP
Comments
Observations on titling process from two RMs
Blueboar, I was working through some RMs this morning and stumbled on two (and closed two) that are a bit illustrative of the points I was trying to make in these two discussions at WP:AT and . The first RM walked us through a logical sequence of policy based evidence. What would have made this even more useful would have been subsequent evidence or at least acknowledgement of ambiguity and style issues. (Apparently there weren’t any in this RM). The second RM move was about ambiguity. No one actually addressed what reliable English Language sources said the common name was. Had they done so, it would have been evident that Orientale Province was a common English language name for this subject. As the closer, I did this review but it would have been much better in the RM process had the nominator and participants done so. When I closed this with a move to Orientale Province, I actually had a style question in my head--Should this really be Orientale province to comply with our WP style? I didn’t pursue it, but had it been addressed in sequence by the nom, the overall discussion would have been more effective for WP in the long run. The substance of these two RMs is inconsequential, it was the process that intrigues me.
I am asking you to consider these two random examples from this standpoint. If we can begin to think about the whole titling process—new titles or title changes in a holistic way, then the words we use to articulate, explain and implement policy will be much easier to craft and should result in clearer, more concise, and effective policy and guidelines. Let me know what you think.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Tequila (song)
Hi Blueboar-- If you are monitoring this requested move, posted by you on 5 February, it seems pretty close now to general but not complete consensus, with essentially the same two initial holdouts. My own impression is that the most recent statements posted by LtPowers and TechnoSymbiosis best summarize this discussion and consensus, but of course you may disagree. Thanks for your help with this issue. (I hope my posting this here is not inappropriate - I'm not familiar with all these rules & regs). Milkunderwood (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind - just now closed by SarekOfVulcan. Thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done
Primary sources
Hi Blueboar: On my talk page you bring up the use of Primary sources on WP, and suggest journal and newspaper articles are in fact treated on WP as Secondary sources. That view is not obvious from the WP documentation, and strikes me as unlikely to achieve the goal of objectivity that I'd take to be the purpose underlying emphasis on secondary sources. It's not just about refusing personal ruminations. I wonder if you are happy with this unfortunate situation, or are simply resigned to it? Is there anything to be gained by trying to sharpen this distinction on the policy page? Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Failing any guidance from you on this matter, I opened a thread. Brews ohare (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)