Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.


Contents

Following up, proposed policy

  • Following up:
    • Unfinished business:
      • Additional secondary sources that indicate whether one or the other term is to be preferred.
      • Additional votes from WP users (either to items above or to proposed policy below)
    • Proposed Policy
      • Articles that use the adjective in the TITLE should use Slovenian based on naming policy (even if the original article used Slovene)
      • Articles that use the noun form in the TITLE should use Slovenian based on naming policy (even if the original article used Slovene)
      • Within those articles, consistency mandates use of the word Slovenian throughout (except where naming an institution, quoting someone, or discussing the alternate term)
      • In other articles, the original editor (or subsequent MAJOR contributors) should be given leeway to use whichever term they prefer with the caveat that consistency should be maintained. (Both are clearly correct in any meaningful sense).
      • Reversions or edits made solely to change one to another (i.e. not to establish consistency, to correct names of institutions, the content of quotes) are not to be tolerated. (Both are clearly correct in any meaningful sense).

Dystopos 14:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's this intended for? Voting? Otherwise, in my opinion, only original editor would probably be better - it is very unclear who is major contributor. And there are certain exceptions, of course, where consistency cannot be maintained. For reversions: correct, that should be treated as vandalism. --Eleassar

  • So far, this is for comment. There is not yet any need for a formal voting process. Informal votes are fine. We're looking for a consensus, so if no strong arguments are made against the proposals, I think we're off to the races. I think "major contributor" is valid in the case where the original article was just a stub and someone later added a large amount of material. I can see where this is less clear-cut and therefore harder to enforce. The main point is that individual articles should not become a battleground over this trivial issue. Dystopos 15:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In general I support this proposal, under the condition that using Slovenian for the adjective and Slovene for the noun is seen as valid and consistent. We have some credible sources here that confirm this. As for the "major contributor", the problem is that sometimes articles grow sentence by sentence. Another problem is that there may be more major contributors. Whose personal taste will we choose? It is really the most unambiguous way to stick to the original editor of the article. --Eleassar my talk 18:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that with this debate we didn't get far. Why using now of a sudden just term 'Slovenian' in titles? We were dealing also with them, didn't we, or now we gonna simply forget what we have learned here. And futher on, it is not a good policy for using both terms in titles. Just one. Why should Slovenian be used based on naming policy? "Slovene" is perfectly appropriate word and it should be considered also in titles - otherwise it is better that we close ´štacuna´ (colloquial - a shop) as Slovenes say. I am really tired of this debate and I see we really won't get far. I also see that it would be very difficult to preserve a word "Slovene" - because it would be hard to achieve consistency. So I may say Slovenian won. Was it worth such effort? If someone WRITES IN UPPER CASE, it is obviously that he will achive that his claims soon or later will be proclaimed laws. --xJaM 21:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • In some cases I have come upon a stub article that was poorly made and expanded it from, say, 2-3 sentences to a full page of text. In this case, I would not want a policy requiring me to conform to the bad judgment of the stub creator. But maybe this is an exception that would make sense even if you had the rule.
    • The "Naming Policy" argument is based on the following introduction to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
    • Slovenians appears to fulfill this policy on every point. Slovene is not objectionable, nor is it "wrong" but, based on the sources we have discovered, it would not be the most easily recognizable, nor the least ambiguous.
    • This covers naming policy and the internal consistency of pages with Slovenian in the article name only. Use of the term on other pages is not covered by naming conventions. Either term is acceptable. The editor can determine if one or the other is preferred for him- or herself.
    • The secondary sources presented here establish mainly that both terms are common and both terms can be defended with many types of evidence. These sources did not produce a way to prefer one over the other that would contravene the convention of using the "most easily recognizable" and "least ambiguous" term, which is apparently Slovenian.
    • Because both words are correct, there will of course be redirects from Slovene.
    • The primary articles, while using Slovenian, should (I think) clearly explain that both terms are correct. Claims that Slovene is "archaic" or "diminishing" should not come from original research and apparently can't be supported. Likewise, claims that the two terms should be distinguished on noun/adjective or ethnic/national lines can be discussed with NPOV like any other unproved claim in Wikipedia. At least for those we have some secondary sources to cite. Dystopos 22:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First, of course we have secondary sources that allow or even recommend distinguishing Slovenian and Slovene on the basis of the adjective and the noun (even if they themselves don't always follow this). These are CIA, Michael Manske's page listing several notable references and Sasha Ceferin. On the other side, as you figured correctly, some other sources mention distinguishing the two terms on the basis of ethnicity and nationality.
However, there is a main difference: while it is evident that distinguishing the two terms on the basis adjective/noun is already an established practice, distinguishind on the basis ethnic/national lines is given only as an idea.
Second, what do you mean by "bad judgement of the stub creator"? We have just found out that both terms are correct (or perhaps have we not?). So I don't see any problem following him or her. Otherwise there will always be disputes and edit wars. It's high time that you realize this. --Eleassar my talk 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S.:Not only redirects, also alternative names. For example, the article Slovenian dialects should include the alternative name Slovene dialects.

More Slovenian (noun and adjective) support, part 2

Yahoo! News search results

Yahoo! News features content from more than a dozen news partners in 13 categories. The front page lists each category of news, and within each category, you'll find a breadth of news providers. News Search reaches out to over 7,000 news sources in 35 languages and offers continuously updated articles from Yahoo! News combined with crawled news sources around the Web.

Slovenians: 62 http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=slovenians&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-news-top&fl=0&x=wrt

Slovenian: 340 http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=slovenian&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-news-top&fl=0&x=wrt

Slovenes: 20 http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=slovenes&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-news-top&fl=0&x=wrt

Slovene: 76 http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=slovene&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-news-top&fl=0&x=wrt

Slovenian as a language option

Note that when selecting 'advanced search' in Google and Yahoo, you have Slovenian as one of the language choices. The same is true for when you install Microsoft Windows (and Linux, if I can recall correctly), 'Slovenian' is a language option. BT2 03:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I have also discovered that one gets larger number of hits for using Slovenian vs Slovene in searching for phrases "Slovenians/Slovenes who" and "Slovenians/Slovenes are" even by limiting the search to pages located in Slovenia only, I don't understand the large discrepancy between these results and my previous ones. I also do not understand why one gets larger number of hits for Slovene than Slovenian when searching in libraries - the books are in English (manually indexed as such) and are mainly from after 1991. -- Eleassar
    • The use of the word in the titles of published books might be illuminating. I continue to personally ignore Google results because search algorithms are not the same as statistical samples. Dystopos 14:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Another thing that I find questionable by Google and Yahoo is the existence of mirror web sites and other similar pages that include the same information and as to the news agencies, they often all use the same story. --Eleassar my talk 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What relevant thing do you question about the Google and Yahoo sources? Even without the mirrored pages, the result set completely dwarfs the puny number of books published that mention Slovenia. Further, these articles have a much larger audience than the books. BT2 13:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least in British English, Slovene is more common than Slovenian, and Slovenes is included in the list of the 86,800 or so most frequently used words, while Slovenians does not appear amongst them. See this link (data from British National Corpus). Dystopos, what would be here the most appropriate way to follow Naming coventions policy? --Eleassar my talk 18:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't get so excited about this wordcount.org source; it is highly questionable. Take a look at a "word" adjacent to Slovene in the frequency list: strach. Please tell me what this is. Further, do you actually believe 'Slovenians' doesn't appear even twice (wordcount's criteria to be included in their list) in any reasonable sample set?

By the way, the British National Corpus is part of Oxford University and hosted on its site. Interestingly enough, a search on Oxford University's site finds:

Slovenians: 9 http://www.google.co.uk/u/Oxford?sitesearch=ox.ac.uk&q=slovenians&Go=Go%21&domains=ox.ac.uk

Slovenian: 67 http://www.google.co.uk/u/Oxford?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&domains=ox.ac.uk&q=slovenian&btnG=Search&sitesearch=ox.ac.uk&meta=

Slovenes: 8 http://www.google.co.uk/u/Oxford?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&domains=ox.ac.uk&q=slovenes&btnG=Search&sitesearch=ox.ac.uk&meta=

Slovene: 61 http://www.google.co.uk/u/Oxford?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&domains=ox.ac.uk&q=slovene&btnG=Search&sitesearch=ox.ac.uk&meta=

Slovenians, Slovenian, and thus Slovenia win again. ;) BT2 13:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The methodology for sampling British English for the "Corpus" is both rigorous and scientific [1]. The methodology for querying Oxford.ac.uk is not. I don't know what "strach" is, but for what it's worth (not much) it gets 34 times more Google hits than "Slovenians".
The corpus appears to provide reliable primary evidence that "Slovene" is more common than "Slovenian" in modern British samples. If Wikipedia were restricted to British English, I think the naming conventions would favor "Slovene." Of our secondary sources, Gobetz does not comment on frequency (but implies that Dr. Kern's influential dictionaries were mistitled and carried undo influence). Klinar claims "Slovene" is increasing in the UK and America (but provides no justification). Metcalfe does not comment on frequency. Ceferin tells us that in Slovenia, "Slovene" was most common immediately after WWII, but "Slovenian" is used more often since independence. Several sources mention that "Slovenian" is especially prevalent in the USA.
In my opinion, then, British "Slovene" vs American "Slovenian" would be pretty evenly matched, but if Ceferin is reliable, the use of "Slovenian" as the English term in Slovenia is enough to favor it for Wikipedia. We are still working with a limited number of sources, though. Dystopos 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

British "Slovene" versus International "Slovenian"

The methodology for sampling British English for the "Corpus" is both rigorous and scientific [2]. The methodology for querying Oxford.ac.uk is not. I don't know what "strach" is, but for what it's worth (not much) it gets 34 times more Google hits than "Slovenians".

Not when you search English pages it doesn't. 'Slovenians' over doubles 'strach' (50,000+ vs 20,800). Heck, even on UK pages alone Slovenians competes well against strach. So much for Corpus. Nice try though.. BT2 17:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to trust British National Corpus rather than BT2's arguments. And while the first is secondary source produced by respected institutions, the last is original research made with an unreliable search engine by someone who takes part in edit wars. Nice try though.. However, Dystopos' reasoning makes sense for me. Ceferin is not one-sided and is a credible source. Also see the results of the American English Corpus (below). Nevertheless, I would also like to hear XJaM's opinion.

"Not when you search English pages it doesn't." We're talking about British English here, not English. And we're talking about cross-section of language, not about Google results.

"Heck, even on UK pages alone Slovenians competes well against strach." Do you think so? See these links: [3], [4]. Strach has eight times(!) as much hits as Slovenians. Yes, some pages are in Polish, but nevertheless, the majority are in English and the difference is too large - besides this, it only demonstrates how unreliable Google is..

Yes, I do think so.
This is the query I used (use the Advanced Search option, type .uk in domain, select English as the language: strach: 834 [5], Slovenians: 558 [6]
And the first two results returned for strach are Welsh, not Polish. BT2 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing this out and my apology, but why do you presume I said that some pages are in Polish based on the first two results? --Eleassar my talk 21:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you were right too. The result set for 'strach' returns articles in Polish as well. I just discovered this now by looking at more records. I figured you said some pages are in Polish because the very first record was written in a foreign language that on the surface looks somewhat like Polish (at least it did to me). You didn't say "some pages are in Polish and other languages," so... BT2 00:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your reasoning. Actually, I just saw pl written in a coincidental web address and therefore figured this may be a Polish surname that also appears in other languages.. I didn't think it was very important to list the languages as it seemed apparent to me that the majority of results are in English. --Eleassar my talk 09:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, American English Corpus is also being build and they promise on their site it will become functional soon. There are already some preliminary results (on this page) and it seems that in American English, Slovenians and Slovenian are more common. I used "complete lexicon" file in the category "Lexicons". This page also needs to be verified for potential accessible references.

I also have a hypothesis what Strach would be. It is a family name. Literally, its meaning is fear or fright, also an evil ghost. In Slovenia some people have this surname [7], although it is written as Strah. --Eleassar my talk 21:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a surname. Not a real word. BT2 21:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here you can read what defines a real word. Here you can also read what BNC considers a word. --Eleassar my talk 21:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it is a real world insomuch as K32kA99#@JK is a word. In fact, since it is a real last name, it is a proper noun. However, you won't find it in any English dictionary; it is not an English word.

BT2

  • Both Slovene and Slovenian are also proper nouns. Unless someone is suggesting using Strach for the article titles in question (it is more common...) then we really don't need to look any further into it. Dystopos 07:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason these Corpus projects are more reliable than Google searches is because the samples are selected by trained researchers as representing actual uses of the word in written and spoken language. They are engineered to answer precisely the question that the last 200kb of arguing boils down to. Great work, Eleassar, to bring that tool to our attention (comment: Thanks. At least someone appreciates my efforts. --Eleassar). All that remains to be done, in my view, is to frame a policy statement that can be referenced when editors are deciding (or fighting over) which term should be favored. Pending any changes in the Corpus projects, Slovenian is to be the preferred term according to established Wikipedia policy on naming conventions. Dystopos 07:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed policy (2)

This is a working draft. I tried to make it as NPOV as possible. It covers all situations that I was able to foresee. I do not at all expect it to be followed in every case, but may the conflict arise, this is something that can be pointed at.

It surely needs some corrections yet. I'll appreciate if you change it to correct grammatical and spelling errors or to make it flow more fluently or to make it comply with the style guide. If you wish to propose any other changes of the contents, please write your suggestions under the line below to be commented. All further comments or questions are welcome. --Eleassar my talk 12:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"This Naming conventions policy regards the question of using the terms Slovenian and Slovene in Wikipedia and all its related projects. It has been found that both terms can be etymologically and linguistically defended and that both are still much used in English as an adjective and a noun, the preference depending on the cultural environment (see: Slovenian and Slovene). Therefore, Wikipedia embraces using both words in articles and in their titles.

Nevertheless, some specific rules have been accepted that more precisely define the use of these two terms. The word Slovenian is more definite and more internationationally used. For these reasons, it should be, according to other rules of the Naming policy and with certain exceptions described below, used as an adjective and a noun in the articles wherever one of these two terms would be part of a title. Wherever possible, a redirect with the alternative term should be created to such articles and the alternative term included in them.

It has also been agreed that consistency is preferred as to the use of these two terms in the corresponding text of such articles. This means that in all cases where Slovenian is used as part of the article's title, it should be (except for the defined exceptions) used as the only form in the article for both the adjective and the noun.

Example:
The article discussing dialects of Slovenian language should have the title "Slovenian dialects". A redirect to it from "Slovene dialects" should be created and in the article itself, information should be included that the alternative name of the topic discussed is "Slovene dialects". Otherwise, except for special circumstances*, the article should stick only to using Slovenian as an adjective and a noun.

Exceptions

There are some exception to these rules:

  • Where the subject or one of the subjects of the article is Slovene discussed from the etymological or linguistic aspect (disregarding alternative names), it can be part of the title and of the article, wherever necessary. If the word Slovenian does not appear in the title at all but Slovene does, Slovene should be the only form used both as an adjective and as a noun, except for special circumstances. Wherever possible, a redirect with the alternative term should be created to such articles and the alternative term included in them.
  • Where the subject of the article is an organisation or part of an organisation and the subject uses Slovene as part of its name so that Slovene appears in the title of the article, this term should be the only form used in the article both as an adjective and a noun, except for special circumstances. This applies also to organizations that existed in the past.

Other articles

In all other articles that do not have neither "Slovenian" nor "Slovene" in their title, the original user of one of these two terms (in continuation: the original contributor) should be given leeway to use whichever term they prefer with the caveat that consistency (again, disregarding special circumstances) should be maintained. Hereby, the consistency means that the original contributor uses:

  1. only "Slovene" for both the adjective and the noun
  2. only "Slovenian" for both the adjective and the noun
  3. "Slovenian" for the adjective and "Slovene" for the noun.

If there are two users, one of which contributes the adjective "Slovenian" and the other the noun "Slovene", this means that the third form of consistency has been established. If one user contributes the adjective "Slovene" and the other the noun "Slovenian", then the second form of consistency applies. If either the adjective or the noun or both legitimately (for undisputed reasons) disappear from the article at some point, the consistency has to be established anew.

If the use of these two terms in the article is not consistent, the original contributor should be given three days to correct it themselves. If they do not establish consistency in this time, it can be established by anyone whatever way they like, as long as this policy is respected.

If the original contributor established a certain form of consistency before three days passed, their will should be respected as long as the article exists, no matter under what title (except if the new title means that other rules of this policy should be followed), and they have the right to change it at any time later if they wish to do so. If someone else established the consistency after three days given to the original contributor, the rights of the original contributor pass to them.

Edits or reversions made solely to change one form to another without any justification by this policy are not to be tolerated. At first, the editor should be warned to respect the policy. If he/she continues to disregard it, their changes or reversions should be treated as vandalism.

Except for the vandalism part, this policy applies retroactively. Nevertheless, it can always be changed on the basis of new acceptable references (see:Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability), under the condition that consensus is reached to change it.

*The special circumstances where the word "Slovene" respectively "Slovenian" can be used in the articles having only "Slovenian" or "Slovene" in their title are: names of the institutions, links to articles having "Slovene" respectively "Slovenian" as part of their title, quotes, discussing the alternate term."

Discussion:

Question: "Several sources mention that "Slovenian" is especially prevalent in the USA." Which sources exactly, besides ANC? --Eleassar my talk 14:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • I got that impression from keeping up the last couple of weeks, but can't find a specific reference. Perhaps it was from some of the comments on the web fora cited. Dystopos 04:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The following is a re-write of Eleassar's proposal. I think most or all of the intent is the same, but I have added a short summary of how we have arrived at this point and specifically which WP policies have been brought to bear. I have also slightly modified the restrictions to favor civility over consistency. I believe this is in line with WP policy as well. Lastly, I have tried hard to make the resulting guidelines as clear and concise as possible. I have provided a place to "sign on" to this guideline, for the reason that though it is derived from official policies, it is not itself official, and really only carries the weight of the editors who are party to the discussion. I have withheld voting on the issue previously but now that it is a matter of compliance with convention rather than "correctness" I add myself to the list of signatories : Dystopos 04:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Policy (2.1)

Slovene vs Slovenian (policy)

A heated and long-running dispute has occupied this and other pages regarding the relative merits of the terms Slovene and Slovenian as both nouns and adjectives referring to Slovenia and its people. Various historical, etymological, cultural, aesthetic, and logical arguments can be made to support the "correctness" of either term. The inescapable conclusion, however, is that both are equally "correct" based on their wide and synonymous use in contemporary global English. Many purported authorities, in fact, use them interchangeably. Because consistency is valued and consensus unreachable, the editors turned to Wikipedia policy for guidance.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions states that article names "should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." Preliminary research into which term is more recognized, using scientific samples of English usage known as "corpora" indicates that "Slovenian" is more common. (English Corpora). Therefore we are establishing style guidelines on this page for reference and dispute resolution on all Wikipedia articles and related project pages.

  1. Articles with Slovene in the title should be redirected to main articles using Slovenian. (Exception: Articles about organizations that use Slovene)
  2. For the sake of consistency, "Slovenian" in the title demands the same term be used throughout that article. "Slovene" in the title demands the opposite. (Exception: specific material that reasonably requires inconsistent usage.)
  3. Naming conventions are not applicable to articles that use "Slovene" or "Slovenian" in the body text only. For these articles, either term is allowable, as long as its usage is consistent.
  4. For the sake of consistency, it is preferred that subsequent editors respect the terminology used by the originator of the article.
  5. Changes to subsequent material can be made to establish consistency with the originator, but please add a pointer to these guidelines on the talk page of the article to help prevent edit wars.
  6. Edits made solely to change one term to the other, overturning the usage of the original contributor and in opposition to reasons given above are strongly discouraged.

Signed by:

This policy will be found at the following locations:

Comments: This is a very well written policy. I have made some minor corrections yet:

  • "people of Slovenia" → "Slovenia and its people"
  • p.2: When Slovene is used in the title, its consistent usage in the article is demanded.
  • p.3: "either term is allowable, as long as its usage is consistent".

My opinion is that this guidelines should become part of Naming conventions policy - "conventions, not rules written in stone". --Eleassar my talk 11:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Sound edits. Moving to WP:NC seems like a good idea. I haven't worked directly on that page before. Seems like if we could get a threshold of 5 signatures from active registered users that we'd be pretty solid either way. Dystopos 13:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this, and after reading it, I have to say I agree with it and would be glad to sign it, hope I'm not too late, though.. :) edolen1 12:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion

A suggestion has been put forward by BT2 to exclude the style of using Slovenian as an adjective and Slovene as a noun from Wikipedia, as the sources proposing such use are not really authoritative and their claims are unfounded. In general, I would agree with him. --Eleassar my talk 18:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with the suggestion and also have some other points regarding the proposal that, since the fire has died down, may still be worth considering:
    • Item 2 would require an article about the "Slovene Club of Havana" to use "Slovene" throughout "for the sake of consistency." - I think that might be going to far. If the editor of that article preferred "Slovenian" in the text, I think that would be ok, so long as he didn't arbitrarily change the name of the group in question.

For now, I oppose this. Slovene is a completely legitimate term and in the case you give, even the preferred one. It is consistent and also shows more respect towards the club's members than the alternative. On the other hand, how to discern what articles would the policy then apply to? Could "Slovene" be the form used in Slovenians? Could it be used in Slovenian language? --Eleassar my talk 06:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Yes, it is a legitimate term, but I don't think it should be a required term. It is possible that a club with "Slovene" in the name would actually now prefer "Slovenian" and just keeps the name because they don't want to buy new stationery. (An extreme example would be the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- the term "colored" is now considered offensive to African Americans) I'm not saying we should discourage Slovene, but just loosen the requirement, leaving it up to the editor's judgment, or consensus on the article's talk page. Dystopos 13:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
As it is stated, naming conventions are "not rules written in stone". If one can prove that this organisation sticks to its current name due to financial difficulties and he or she has a wide enough consensus to use Slovenian in the article, I think there is no problem doing so. Similar for other such cases. It only has to be justified somehow. This has already been formalized: "Exception: specific material that reasonably requires inconsistent usage."
Unrelated, I hope you don't mind me using colors. This makes the discussion more readable (it is easier to see what different editors wrote). --Eleassar my talk 05:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • In item 4 we would simply remove the last two sentences.
    • Item 6 may go to an extreme to require civility. At one point this seemed necessary, but hopefully now Wikipedia:Assume good faith could allow us to be less strict about edits for consistency. Discuss pages should still be used before wholesale changes are made.

What exactly do you mean? If you refer to the three-days warnings, I agree. A note in the edit summary is enough. --Eleassar my talk 06:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Yes, I was referring to the 3-days warning. I think it's OK to make the changes yourself as long as the reasoning is explained. Dystopos 13:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Item 7 may also overextend the definition of a personal attack. Users should be warned about ignoring these guidelines, but the user would need to demonstrate malicious intent to truly qualify as a vandal. Dystopos 19:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, wasn't there some discussion about extending the definition of a vandal to cover the Naming conventions issues? --Eleassar my talk 06:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

    • I don't know about such discussion, and I think it would still have to be demonstrably malicious (by virtue of a pattern of contrary behavior or an uncivil attitude when discussing changes, etc). There is good chance that a newcomer might violate these conventions with good intentions and we should be sure not to accuse otherwise. Dystopos 13:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It was probably thought for persistent cases of contrary behavior. --Eleassar my talk 05:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)