https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18793
--- Comment #15 from stevertigo <stv...@gmail.com> 2009-05-30 20:02:07 UTC --- demon: "Every namespace is given a canonical name to refer to it. 'User', 'MediaWiki' and 'Category' are all canonical names too." Does your particular usage of the term "canonical" follow it's canonical meaning in general English usage? The term "canonical" is only meaningful within the context of a particular language system, to indicate that particular term has dominance in frequency and preference with regard to referencing a particular concept. You appear to be using the term to mean "canonical within MediaWiki's scripted conventions." I am instead suggesting that the term is "canonical within English," and not particularly within MediaWiki or its systems. Putting aside for a moment the fact that the system "English" (and its canon) supersedes MediaWiki's in terms of importance (though a Lojban speaker might consider English inferiour to Lojban) the system called "English Wikipedia" itself does exactly that anyway. demon: "I wish you wouldn't continue to infer that it has anything to do with "poor coding habits," because it doesn't." I may be wrong about this, but I am under the impression that programmers often pride themselves in their capacity to write abstracted functions, such that (ideally) all output can be handled via straight-forward objective abstracted functions. Am I am under the wrong impression in this regard? demon: "'Project' was chosen as the project namespace canonical name because it's sufficiently generic as to what the namespace is for. Granted, it may not have been the best choice, but it's there." I understand that a term may be "sufficiently generic." What I suggest is that you consider that such term is also "sufficiently English" such that English-speaking Wikipedians, not just MediaWiki sysadmins, might want to use it. demon: "As mentioned several times before: even if Project: was changed from the default (which can easily be done, the same process applied to Image -> File could be followed), it would still be retained for back-compat." I understand now that its "easily done" and that the only issue is simple backward compatibility. Is this as relevant to Wikipedia as much as it is to the non-WikiMedia MediaWiki installations? I think its only subjective to state that interwiki issues, particularly non-WikiMedia interwiki issues, are 'preventative,' when there are no actual data on such usage. In any case, changing something obviously means doing it right; gradually and over sufficient time as to allow people to accommodate. -SV -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
