Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 206: Line 206:  
::: Good suggestions, Jinkas.  Unless another Sysop objects, I like your proposed standard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::: Good suggestions, Jinkas.  Unless another Sysop objects, I like your proposed standard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:::: Oh, I wish people would stop think just in U.S. terms!  First, I'd go for "City, State", not "City, ST", as (a) (many?) other countries don't have two-letter codes for their states, so that format would not be universally applicable, and (b) the American state codes would not be as familiar to non-Americans as the names of the states.  Second, and this is more of a query than an objection or proposal, what about countries without states?  Do we say "Newcastle, England" ("City, Country") and "Newcastle, New South Wales" ("City, State") or "Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia" ("City, State, Country"), or what?  It's probably okay to have "City, State" where there are states and "City, Country" where there are no states, but I'd be interested in other views on this.  Then of course there are places with provinces or etc. instead of states, but I guess we simply treat them in the same manner as states.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:::: Oh, I wish people would stop think just in U.S. terms!  First, I'd go for "City, State", not "City, ST", as (a) (many?) other countries don't have two-letter codes for their states, so that format would not be universally applicable, and (b) the American state codes would not be as familiar to non-Americans as the names of the states.  Second, and this is more of a query than an objection or proposal, what about countries without states?  Do we say "Newcastle, England" ("City, Country") and "Newcastle, New South Wales" ("City, State") or "Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia" ("City, State, Country"), or what?  It's probably okay to have "City, State" where there are states and "City, Country" where there are no states, but I'd be interested in other views on this.  Then of course there are places with provinces or etc. instead of states, but I guess we simply treat them in the same manner as states.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::::Thank you for your input.  I made a suggestion about US terms because it is with US terms that I am most familiar.  As far as I know, other countries do not have two-letter codes for their states, so my proposal would be applicable to US cities only.  Other users with more international experience, such as yourself, Joaquín Martinez, or any other of the good users who live outside of the US could certainly propose a style definition for cities in your country or international cities in general.  Furthermore, although my proposal could be construed this way, I was not advocating for having only a City, ST article and nothing else.  For US cities, let's put the main article (with category) in City, ST, but create City, State and City (if appropriate) as redirects. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 09:31, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 
::: Personally, I'm not sure this is needed at this time.  I go with the thought that the fewer rules we apply, unless obviously necessary, the better.  The fewer rules that there are and the easier that we make it to edit, the more likely people are to want to create articles, or to edit those that already exist.  Many cities are known by their names alone:  "Las Vegas", "Los Angeles", "Boston", etc.  I think there should be some amount of discretion left to the article creator.  In the event that a city, ST naming convention is adopted (or city, state) then please also make sure that the city names alone are created as redirects.  An article on Nevada may make mention of famous cities such as "Las Vegas", "Reno", etc.  We don't want the Nevada article to say "Las Vegas, NV", "Reno, NV". (Note:  I am aware the editor can put "Las Vegas, NV|Las Vegas" but again we are adding extra levels of complexity, and the greater the level of complexity, the less likely the rule is to be properly followed.
 
::: Personally, I'm not sure this is needed at this time.  I go with the thought that the fewer rules we apply, unless obviously necessary, the better.  The fewer rules that there are and the easier that we make it to edit, the more likely people are to want to create articles, or to edit those that already exist.  Many cities are known by their names alone:  "Las Vegas", "Los Angeles", "Boston", etc.  I think there should be some amount of discretion left to the article creator.  In the event that a city, ST naming convention is adopted (or city, state) then please also make sure that the city names alone are created as redirects.  An article on Nevada may make mention of famous cities such as "Las Vegas", "Reno", etc.  We don't want the Nevada article to say "Las Vegas, NV", "Reno, NV". (Note:  I am aware the editor can put "Las Vegas, NV|Las Vegas" but again we are adding extra levels of complexity, and the greater the level of complexity, the less likely the rule is to be properly followed.
   Line 211: Line 214:     
::: Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:39, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::: Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:39, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::Thank you for your comments; I would like to say a few words in response.  I think it is important to adopt some sort of universal style at this time, while the number of city articles is still somewhat small and easy to change.  As I mentioned above, a redirect from City, State to City, ST would be created, as well as a redirect from City to City, ST when appropriate (and I believe your mentioned examples of Las Vegas and Reno would be more than appropriate).  I don't think this would inhibit or discourage editing as I have proposed no punishment or system of enforcement.  Our users could edit as normal, and if a sysop or someone with the permissions to move pages notices an article that happens to be misnamed, they could simply move it to the correct name and establish the appropriate redirects.  I think that uniform style definition in this regard will give a consistency to a large part of Conservapedia that will add to the professional appearance of this resource. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 09:31, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
    
:: I agree with Ed. In my opinion creation of lists of stub cities plays into the hands of our detractors who like to claim we are specialists at one line articles.  We don't need to make that a reality.  We've worked hard to improve our reputation, and that doesn't do us any favors. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:41, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:: I agree with Ed. In my opinion creation of lists of stub cities plays into the hands of our detractors who like to claim we are specialists at one line articles.  We don't need to make that a reality.  We've worked hard to improve our reputation, and that doesn't do us any favors. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:41, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
708

edits

Navigation menu