Template talk:FOSS personalities/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Useful?

I think this template places an ontology that doesn't otherwise exist or is useful for users. The collection of four individuals under this umbrella is sort of haphazard. --71.254.7.215 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There are now twenty-one individuals on the template. - Lentower 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've said it before: if you want it deleted, please nominate it rather than bickering around. WP:TFD - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm still thinking through what the right Wikipedia thing is to do with this template. WP editing requires a new mindset for me. I've only been editing on WP for a half year. I'll share my thoughts as they crystalize. What's the link to nominate a template for deletion? Or point me at the documentation? Thanks either way! - Lentower 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The right wikipedia thing to do is to fix it or don't complain. pschemp | talk 14:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Alphabet sort

My bad about van Rossum.

I'm not sure about O'Reilly too ... I think the Irish sort by the name and not by the O.

Thanks for the fix - that's what wikis are for. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that I've seen both conventions being used even in academic books, but Wikipedia may well have a guideline on it somewhere... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alphabet sort 2

I'm quite sure about putting van Rossum under R. In categories, he's listed under R - Rossum, Guido van (like Beethoven, Ludwig van).

I'm not that sure about de Raadt, though.

Dutch name and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category seem to contradict each other in this matter ... --Amir E. Aharoni 08:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't dutch, it's not german, it's not french, it's english, thus the rules of the native language of the name don't apply, the english rules do. As far as I know, the english rules are to start with the first letter of a last name, it's definately the way the canadian government does it. 65.94.50.226 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at Category:Classical era composers: Ludwig van Beethoven is under B, not V.
Look at: Guido van Rossum is under R, not V (although de Raadt is under D, but there's something weird about it, and i'm checking it.)
There are rules in the English language and in Wikipedia about writine names from non-English cultures. These rules are a part of English language. The Wikipedia policy about Dutch names is inconclusive, though - see Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category. The Dutch and some other peoples (Russians, Chinese, Burmans to name a few) understand the concept of "last name" not exactly the same way as English-speakers do.
Out of curiosity - can you show me a place where the Canadian government wrote it the way you say? --Amir E. Aharoni 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The ordering of Dutch names in usually done by the whole name from left to right, thus de Raadt, van Rossum, etc. This used to cause problems for certain specific situations, e.g. an addressbook or file system that did not always provide a large space for "D" and "V" while so many people's name start with De/de or Van/van. Nowadays more often using electronical storage that does not know this problem, the solution by storing on the more varying part of the name, has become even more uncommon. That solution proved to cause problems, for instance if one heard the name Vandecasteele over the phone, it might be spelled Van de Casteele, Van De Casteele, Vande Casteele, Van Decasteele, or Vandecasteele. It can then take much more time to find the right file; time is money and you don't want to put your customer on hold any longer than necessary.
The Beethoven comparison is invalid. The names starting with 'van' or 'Van' originated either as meaning '[son] of' or 'from'. In Beethoven's case the latter is more likely: from [the] turnip field(s). In the early days of common people getting a family name, this literal meaning will still have sounded right, even if one's family was not known to have been growing turnips. One might then more easily drop the prefix. Another historical sample: in the 16th century, Thomas More wrote letters to his friend Hieronymus (Jeroom) van Busleyden, addressing him in the letters shortly by "Busleyden, you ...". Both Busleyden and Beethoven are often named without the 'Van'. Nowadays, the family names are seen as one whole, one never talks of 'Raadt' or 'Rossum' (unless perhaps in a very rude way).
Since ordering by the whole name is standard on Wikipedia, the Dutch language not having a fixed rule on such (there may have been differences at certain times between official records in the Netherlands and in Belgium), but certainly the Wikipedia way now being the most common, I strongly suggest not to make an exception for the Dutch language names. — SomeHuman 22 Aug 2006 16:26 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
My rationale for sorting by the last part is that it seems easier to me to scan an alphabetical list by capital letters, and de and van are usually written with small d and v.
Also, sampling of various Dutch-related categories shows that people with van and de are usually not under d and v.
All that said, i'd go with an accepted Wikipedia standard - but the current one is inconclusive. --Amir E. Aharoni 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Most names are written with capital D or V, I assume you now a lot of people of nobility, whose names are written with small d or v.
One more practical note: in electronical storage, at least one company with about 40,000 employees in the Netherlands and Belgium, allows looking up people in an addressbook disregarding any spaces and capitalization. Thus a search on Vandecasteele may return on screen:
  • Van de Casteele, Anton
  • Vande Casteele, Bart
  • Van De Casteele, Chris
  • Vandecasteele, Danny
  • Vande Casteele, Erica
  • Van De Casteele, Felix (etc) – and is very practical compared with any other system. — SomeHuman 22 Aug 2006 16:55 (UTC)
That's nice to know - i wish that Hebrew searching software was that efficient.
But here we are talking about van Rossum and de Raadt and i don't remember that i have ever seen their names written with capital V and D, except in the beginning of a sentence. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I forgot another series of real names: DHaese, Dhaese, dHaese, D'Haese, D'haese, d'Haese, d' Haese. As for Van Rossem, Van Rossum and van Rossum, one has only one spelling for a particular family, though historically they might once have had a same name that became distorted from some time onwards. — SomeHuman 22 Aug 2006 17:24 (UTC)
That's all interesting - but how should i sort van Rossum and de Raadt?
The only place on the www that in which found Guido van Rossum's name alphabetically sorted is here: Python/XML package credits and it supports my opinion about sorting by the R. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
To make decisions, a single sample is statistically worthless. There's another problem: many Flemish people have French language firstnames: Jean-Louis, or Jean Louis. How would you handle the "-" versus the blank? I think a recent law allows parents to pass the family name of the father, of the mother, or both to their children. I assume we will come to see 'Alex van Rossum-de Raadt' soon... and perhaps sometimes (mis?)spelled with blanks beside the dash 'Alex van Rossum - de Raadt'. The only practical method is (here simplified pseudo programming):
IndexOn field:( UpperCase ( ReplaceIn ( field:Familyname field:Firstname, " " or "-" or "'", "") ) )
Anyone can easily do this in mind, just discard the funny characters. Thus one does not have to think about alphabetical positions of normal characters or capitals, blanks, apostrophes, dashes (which have different positions in code tables on a PC or a mainframe, for instance: ASCII, EBCDIC). — SomeHuman 22 Aug 2006 18:32 (UTC)

Alphabet sort 3

Guido van Rossum's home page

Says: "Alphabetization: in America, I show up in the alphabet under "V". But in Europe, I show up under "R". And some of my friends put me under "G" in their address book..."

So i judge in favor of R.

Logic: English is not only American, but European too; Guido is European.

Plus, it's easier to me to scan an alphabetical list by capital letters, and de and van are usually written with small d and v :)

Regards. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Damnit

Crap, why can't i get van Rossum right?

(Probably 'cuz my favourite language is Perl afterall ... ) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Analphabetism

That's the impression I'm getting: After numerous arguments in favour of ordering by the complete family name, while I showed what kind of problems one will encounter in the future – like where to put very real family names as d'Haese or D'haese or D'Haese or with a blank d' Haese or starting with a small character dHaese (there goes the argument of taking the last part because it's easier to sort on capitals), not to mention Fayd'herbe or Faydherbe (names that occur in the Netherlands and in the US) – and having disproven the validity of the 'Beethoven' argument, after showing a method that works for all names, which also orders by capitalizing everything before ordering, no argument is countered but based on one single sample and van Rossum's ridiculizing remark (the G of his firstname, showing he's too much a man-of-the-world to make a fuss about these little things): all simply discarded because it doesn't fit the made-up mind. Thus a talk page is just an excuse to do whatever one intended to do in the first place.

The idea that ordering by the last part of a family name would be European, is untrue; it only used to be one of several methods. I'm as European as van Rossum and encountered more often, and almost exclusively nowadays, ordering on the complete name. The white telephone guide in Belgium for instance, follows the same logic as I had promoted (discarding blanks and other hard to alphabetically order characters and put everything in uppercase before ordering to determine the position where of course the unaltered proper name is shown, see the sample ordered list in section Alphabet sort 2. The method of ordering 'van Rossum' as 'Rossum, van' is as outdated as manual filing systems and even in those days both methods had been in use. Where this had led to (rarely) reading one's name as 'Rossum, van', it looked ridiculous to many and had often upset people: they see their name as something you can't go juggling around – unless one is used to things, as Mr. Rossum, van. — SomeHuman 23 Aug 2006 16:19 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i hurt you.
I wouldn't re-sort it if i didn't see that he wrote it on his own homepage. Wikipedia likes sources - i gave two of them about the van Rossum in question and re-sorted de Raadt for consistency.
Thanks for all the input, anyway - i learnt a lot about Netherlands and Belgium. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Wikipedia likes references. Some from the Netherlands? .*.****..**.*...., or some Flemish ones? ........ — I just googled on "lijst van familienamen" (list of family names) and "lijst van achternamen" (list of surnames) and picked all the results in their common Dutch language with mainly Dutch or Flemish language names and not obvious reproductions of old archives, that appeared first. Of course, I took just one sample per site (else one phone guide with lists per town might outweigh those of all other authors). Not all of these are very useful samples: to avoid any personal bias I did not want to make choices. The ones with an * in front follow your preference to some extent; the others either my preference, or – just a few – a variation on the latter taking blanks in account (which I strongly oppose to; that method had been used in Belgian telephone guides and became replaced with the one I promote, indicating its superiority: forcing everyone to adapt is not readily done without good reason and then only after long time complaints about the former method). Even in the Netherlands, the balance does not support your preference, in Belgium that method seems nearly non-existent (or, Hollandic is not a synonym of European, and on that matter, van Rossum has no authoritative voice). Does my earlier one sample is statistically worthless start to make sense now? (That's why I skipped the one from Dutchspeaking Suriname. though it does prove the method I defend, is at least known in the former Dutch colony). Notice also how biased your repeated "usually written with small d and v"' was.
Conclusion: In the Netherlands, both methods occur about evenly. Choosing precisely that particular method that enforces a "Dutch Nation branding" onto every reader of the English Wikipedia, most of whom are totally unaccustomed to this method, instead of the method just as common in the Netherlands and normal in most other countries using the same alphabet, even where the Dutch language is spoken, and which is promoted by the English Wikipedia, is a blatant demonstration of POV. I do not feel hurt, but I feel I should not have needed to spend this much time to something I had hoped to make clear enough by my first comment in section Alphabet sort 2 — SomeHuman 24 Aug 2006 00:53 (UTC)
Your time was not wasted. Now i am much more educated about the Dutch language than i was a few days ago.
If you seriously think that your method is better, you are more than welcome to promote it at the Wikipedia style guide page instead of this silly little template talk page for FOSS fanboys like me :). That style guide mentions Dutch names separately, but it is very inconclusive on the matter and you could improve it.
For these two particular names, though, i gave my rationale above. If you still think that it's wrong, then i've got a wonderful proposal - let's sort them by the first name! :-)
And again, thanks a lot for your time. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Since User:Amire80 knows the link, I cannot figure out why he keeps saying 'very inconclusive', quote:

People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example: [[Categorie:Nederlands voetballer|Basten van Marco]]; [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Basten, Marco van]] → [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]]

It cannot be more definitely and clearly stated. Obviously, as I had pointed out in my former comment, Amir E. Aharoni is set on staying utterly blind regarding anything that does not match his preoccupation. The text in his reference mentions "Exceptions" (I assume "Warnings" might be more correct): 1) only for Beethoven and a few similar names that are generally known without the prefix part of their original name. For all other, the prefix is fully part of the name for all puposes, including for ordering. 2) once more not an exception but in fact a warning: some names appear like 'van den ...' but are not so, e.g. the architect Mies van der Rohe did not have a firstname 'Mies' and surname 'van der Rohe', but used the surname 'Mies van der Rohe' (his firstname was Ludwig, like that other exceptional artist). The template text is now again ordered as it had been on several occasions before.
For all clarity, the quote comes from a Wikipedia style guide, the link to Dutch name mentioned under section Alphabet sort 2 does not go to a style guide for Wikipedia but simply to a regular article on how names are sorted, in fact not in Dutch but by the Dutch (and then only by some, as I already had demonstrated). Moreover, the article on Dutch names says, quote:

However, Dutch names in English directories (e.g. reference lists of scientific papers) tend to be ordered on the full name including all prefixes (Van Rijn would be ordered under 'V').

This does not look very inconclusive to me. — — SomeHuman 24 Aug 2006 19:10 (UTC)
Let me explain why i think that it is inconclusive.
De Raadt is indeed used with de more often then van Beethoven used with van.
However actual Wikipedia practice shows that Dutch, Belgian and South African names are more often not listed in categories under d or v, but after the word with the capital letter.
So i should have wrote "practice" and not just "policy". Such discrepancy between practice and policy can mean two things - either nobody cares or the policy is inconclusive afterall.
I'm sorry if this discussion makes you think that i'm blind, illiterate and stubborn. I actually hope that it may make the policy and the practice better, although i'll be surprised if it's the first ever of its kind on Wikipedia. Call me naive, if you will. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Both the policy and the article on Dutch names state clearly that in an English text or article, the 'Dutch' style is not proper (see both quotes above). Of course, Dutch people are used to their method and appl sorting simply the (only) way they know. It is only after finding out that this is not as common to everyone, that one will – as you did – start looking for guide lines. The problem is that one does not always (and possibly more often not) become aware of the need for those, and thus a lot of 'Dutch' method lists may exist. That does not make them 'right' (there are also many people who ever get involved in a car accident...). Unless you find a discussion about this on such article's talk page, that actually mentions the Wikipedia style guide on the subject and gives proper argumentation why to deviate from it, you should follow the style guide and – if you have the time – improve the 'Dutch' method lists that you had found so as to follow the style guide; and/or put a message on its talk page (perhaps to the discussion here). This may invoke others to avoid making the same mistake – because that's what it is, really. I had realized you were only a little naive (not uncommon when confronted with an unfamilar and unexpected way of thinking as a different method of sorting than one has been used to), and just wanted to do someting about it. — SomeHuman 27 Aug 2006 12:36 (UTC)

Please note the Manual of Style policy on this has now been changed, following discussion on the talk page there. Johnbod 21:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This template: a failed experiment? better as a Category?

It gives me no pleasure to say, I think the content of this template is dull, and is getting worse. I don't think this is the fault of the contributors - I think that this level of quality, and the decline in quality, was unavoidable and is unfixable. I can see how this would have seemed to be a coherent and interesting template before it was made, but now, it looks like a failed experiment.

If this was a Category, it would be easier to ignore, but templates occupy larger and more distinguished space on the screen. The quality standard to justify a template should be high.

The topic lacks definition, and I think the general concept is fundamentally undefinable (or insufficiently definable). This is a particularly difficult problem for a template since, unlike Categories which have pages where the definition can be stated and viewed by normal readers, templates have to rely solely on the name of the template. They are thus only really suited to concepts that can be summed up and defined in a title.

Now we have Brendan Eich, Mitch Kapor, and Andrew Tridgell being called "FOSS celebs" - for one of those people, the first time I saw their name was in this template, and I've been on the FOSS circuit since the mid- or late-90s.

I'm not going to nominate this for deletion, but I wanted to note my thoughts somewhere. I think it is worth considering re-implementing this as a category. I hope I haven't come across too negative. It was worth trying, but now it needs some re-thinking. Gronky 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth about these navigational templates is that they need to be either aggressively defended or periodically deleted and then recreated (as invariably they will be, the list of empires template has been created and deleted twice already afaik). Removing edit buttons, for instance, lengthens the expected useful lifespan of such templates, but detracts from the "freedom" element of the encyclopaedia. Categories are only more valuable because editing them is less accessible. I may have already suggested that there should be a GUI tool for editing templates, drag-and-drop style. Again, more freedom, less intellectual elite (I bet I'll get roasted for that one, kaw (exclamation)!) So the drill is, remove any article you feel misplaced in the template, but be prepared to defend your decision, because it will be contested. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. What does this template mean? Wrote a lot of software that later was made free software by others? (Note #Bill_Joy.) Be a major proponent of free software, but have written no code? Both? Won a reward that the FSF gives? (Even though their award committees have been top-notch.) Something else? Recently, I added Keith Bostic and John Gilmore to this template. Both had made major contributions as large, and usually larger to FOSS, then anyone else on the list other then Richard Stallman. I considered several dozen and settled on those two. Then tonight Tim O'Reilly (I verified this outside of the WP site.) added four of those dozens and Bill Joy who I would never have considered. Rationales could be made for hundreds of people. And then the list would be diluted and increasingly meaningless. I'n not enough of a WPian to know how to get the template considered for deletion, but it be a good idea. Make it a category instead. - Lentower 07:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The reasoning being that a category has no central place for discussion? Or how does a category avoid the problems you describe? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories have the same central place for discussion as any other article. Click on a Category link at the bottom of an article, which brings up the article listing all the articles in the category. Click on the discussion tab at the top, which brings you to the Talk page for the category. - Lentower 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll answer your other question in a few days. And raise some others. As I think about this, I'm still finding new prespectives on it. Respectfully - Lentower 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories are also subject to bloating in the same way as a template. There is nothing to stop the category from becoming diluted and meaningless either, so that's not a very good argument for changing it. Rationales also apply to a category in the same ways, so that's not a good reason either. In either, rationales are developed as we go along, like everything else on the wiki. Rather than complain about the lack of rationales, work on making them. Really, the template is better as it allows an overview with one glance on the article. For categories one must navigate to the category first and then muck around in it. As for dull, um templates will never be exciting things. Look at that ones for the succession of Kings of England. They could not be duller, but are more useful than a giant category. pschemp | talk 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Lentower, you may be aware that from the way categories are currently implemented, they are not watchable - only the talk and lead text can be watched, not the content. So in addition to what has been said before, categories are very easy to vandalise, and require one more click than a template to navigate through. Category implementation will improve eventually, but until that time, templates are far preferable for major categorisations. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who criticized this template when it started, I'd like to state that it was never really "coherent" or "interesting" in its beginning. Even though the templates gain the technical benefit of being watchable (which can be managed by shared watchlists, no?), they are no excuse for poor categorization. They're also no excuse for people to not contribute to the project to categorize articles at Wikipedia. More coherent alternatives to this template are categories like Category:free software programmers. --69.54.29.23 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks, anon, for coming along to paint with your own broad POV brush. I guess we shouldn't create concepts like "public face of free and open source software" because they're outside the box, and Wikipedia has to be strictly inside the box, right? How could anything that's outside the box possibly be useful? Surely the history of science and technology should have taught us something about this by now? But I digress. You have apparently missed the point that there is no obligation for anyone to contribute anything to Wikipedia, and even less of an obligation for Wikipedians to boss each other around. So smile and enjoy the ride. Peace. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely, this is the reaction of the person who started the template that is under discussion? If only criticism didn't bring bad feelings. All I can say is that I know I tried in good faith to contribute to the template in a manner congruent with it's original spirit. --69.54.29.23 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's that boring, how come it's not dying in oblivion? Seems if we've spent this much time discussing what the template should contain, it must be relevant, or people wouldn't care. Sure, everyone wants their favourite hacker to be in it, but I don't see that as a reason to kill the template. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bill Joy

I removed him. Bill Joy is not a proponent of free software. Once he got his degree, he went off to a start-up and became a multi-millionare by writing and supervising the production of proprietary software. It is true, that while at Berkeley, he wrote much of the software that was in BSD. And some of that became FOSS software through the efforts of Keith Bostic and others. Some also consider him a great programmer, though others have said that his code is obscure, subtle and hard to maintain. The final release of BSD from CSRG at Berkeley had little of his code left in it. It had all been replaced. Before you add Bill back, you should first add to the Bill Joy article, stating how he has been a proponent of FOSS software, with adequete citations. Respectfully, Lentower 07:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone should be noted as a Key figures of FOSS history for the start of Berkeley Unix, it is Prof. Bob Fabry, who secured the grants that allowed Unix development to occur at Berkeley, and supervised it. He had the vision that UCB could make a big difference in Unix. He was responsible for getting Bill Joy involved. Bill Joy lucked into the environment that Prof. Fabry set up. Still Respectfully, Lentower 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)