X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 15 08:48:43 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906141251g418db961p3fbe520eeffdfb2c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <210291.63163.qm@web32806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<25890ca0906141251g418db961p3fbe520eeffdfb2c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:48:24 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0906142348m1fc548bpf49902ca7129225a@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.2
X-Spam_score_int: 2
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 22:51, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > At this point I'd agree with just a
	consistent current name usage > throughout, just to kill all the
	pointless edit wars - though I'm sure > it'd just move on to warring
	over alternative names to be included. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.2 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] More cabal theory
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5081290042460592677=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 22:51, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > At this point I'd agree with just a
	consistent current name usage > throughout, just to kill all the
	pointless edit wars - though I'm sure > it'd just move on to warring
	over alternative names to be included. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.0 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============5081290042460592677==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5a66fd735d2046c5d7150

--001636c5a66fd735d2046c5d7150
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 22:51, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:

> At this point I'd agree with just a consistent current name usage
> throughout, just to kill all the pointless edit wars - though I'm sure
> it'd just move on to warring over alternative names to be included.


I propose:

* If a historic event dependent on the historic name's origin is described,
use the historic name at the time of event, and at first mention add
(currently <current name>).

* Otherwise, use current name.  If there's a pressing need, add (then
<historic name>) in first usage.

Historic events dependent on the historic name's origin would, as far as I
can tell, mainly be military and administrative actions of the power that
used that name.  That is to say, if Boleslaw III passed a law, it's
"Szczecin"; if Frederick passed a law, it's "Stettin (currently Szczecin)",
if Marco Polo visited the town to peddle earthware, it's "Szczecin", and if
Marco Polo only came to sell China to Frederick, it might possibly be
"Szczecin (then Stettin)".

A pure current name convention wouldn't work properly.  For example, it
would be quite incorrect to say that Willem Verhulst founded New York.
 Verhulst founded Fort Amsterdam; it only later became New Amsterdam, and
ultimately New York.  Outside political significance, however, there would
be nothing wrong with discussing, say, Hudson's exploration of the New York
area.

-- 
Andres Soolo

--001636c5a66fd735d2046c5d7150
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 22:51, radek szulga <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com">rsszulga@gmail.com<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
At this point I&#39;d agree with just a consistent current name usage<br>
throughout, just to kill all the pointless edit wars - though I&#39;m sure<=
br>
it&#39;d just move on to warring over alternative names to be included.</bl=
ockquote><div><br></div><div>I propose:</div><div><br></div><div>* If a his=
toric event dependent on the historic name&#39;s origin is described, use t=
he historic name at the time of event, and at first mention add (currently =
&lt;current name&gt;).</div>
<div><br></div><div>* Otherwise, use current name. =C2=A0If there&#39;s a p=
ressing need, add (then &lt;historic name&gt;) in first usage.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>Historic events dependent on the historic name&#39;s origin wo=
uld, as far as I can tell, mainly be military and administrative actions of=
 the power that used that name. =C2=A0That is to say, if Boleslaw III passe=
d a law, it&#39;s &quot;Szczecin&quot;; if Frederick passed a law, it&#39;s=
 &quot;Stettin (currently Szczecin)&quot;, if Marco Polo visited the town t=
o peddle earthware, it&#39;s &quot;Szczecin&quot;, and if Marco Polo only c=
ame to sell China to Frederick, it might possibly be &quot;Szczecin (then S=
tettin)&quot;.</div>
<div><br></div><div>A pure current name convention wouldn&#39;t work proper=
ly. =C2=A0For example, it would be quite incorrect to say that Willem Verhu=
lst founded New York. =C2=A0Verhulst founded Fort Amsterdam; it only later =
became New Amsterdam, and ultimately New York. =C2=A0Outside political sign=
ificance, however, there would be nothing wrong with discussing, say, Hudso=
n&#39;s exploration of the New York area.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--001636c5a66fd735d2046c5d7150--


--===============5081290042460592677==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

--===============5081290042460592677==--


