| Revision as of 12:28, 31 August 2022 editScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,833 edits Reverting edit(s) by Aziz al-Abub (talk) to rev. 1107364271 by Markbassett: Vandalism (from contribs) (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:36, 13 September 2022 edit undoJMF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,577 edits →MOS:CURRENCY: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::: just to note -- the final comment seems to say clarification not needed about this, but I did go back and saw more to talk about not directly related to the 'not clear' post here. Cheers ] (]) 16:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC) | ::: just to note -- the final comment seems to say clarification not needed about this, but I did go back and saw more to talk about not directly related to the 'not clear' post here. Cheers ] (]) 16:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC) | ||
| == MOS:CURRENCY == | |||
| I sympathise with your view that something like {{tq|The '''Neptuno''' (symbol, '''♆''', ] code '''EWN''') is the currency of ]}} as an opening phrase is indeed rather deathly prose, especially as it duplicates the infobox. If there were to be a an advisory on it, ] would be the place for it but right now it has nothing to say. So if you want to pursue the question, ] would be the place to raise it. I guess one immediate riposte would be that the phrase in parentheses provides a landing zone for the (fictitious) ] and ] redirects. So you would need to anticipate that one in your proposal. ] (]) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:36, 13 September 2022
More discussion on how to handle abolished noble titles
Some of the responses to this thread highlight the issues that our naming, WEIGHT, RS, and NPOV policies apparently do not sufficiently cover. It's not just Austria -- in basically any country where the monarchy was officially abolished and royal/noble titles outlawed, there is some constituent that continues to idolize aristocracy, and the most accessible sources (news articles, magazines) fervently cater to them. Is the POV promoted by rainbow media and aristocratic orgs more DUE than that of the government and academia, which generally do not mention this specific person by name but only cover the disputed title--which by extension ensures that individual doesn't personally, legally claim the title himself? While it would be great if everyone interpreted the above policies as you said you do in the earlier thread (with official constitutional decrees, governmental recognition, and/or personal non-use of a title having precedence when considering article titles as well as article body treatment), there is enough ambiguity that these arguments constantly re-emerge. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:JoelleJay General cases versus Specific items would definitely seem a useful way to make distinctions. For example, the ‘generally’ useful guide for all might give strong value on WP:WEIGHT of the common usage, except to respect a BLP person's explicit ‘specific choices’ otherwise such as abdication or claims in dispute, plus the article should do NPOV and present both views in proportion to their prominence. And individual articles may go their own way in any case so embrace whatever is decided will be just a general guide.
- There might also be some agreement to approach things using specifics. Folks might agree to a principle of respecting ‘specific mentions’ more than of general ones. Or folks might agree to take an approach of smaller bites. Perhaps things could be broken into ‘specific kinds of cases’ (e.g. exiled vs born to title but never titled, vs born after the law, etcetera) and find that some are not contentious. Or perhaps things could be looked at as let's just get a guide ‘specific to Austria and the living Austrian nobility‘ and so just needs to discuss a small number of specific articles and actual situations. Just throwing out ideas here, you may have others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Pound sterling
Mark, it is not clear from your post what exactly you are declaring your support for. Would you read the three questions again please? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman: The phrase "the three questions" should link to Talk:Pound sterling instead of Talk:Pound Sterling. NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't see any difference?
- Mark put his response at the end of
#Survey (Q1)but I can't see which of your three questions he supports. But I assume that his intent is covered in his subsequent declaration at#Survey (Q2)and we need not pursue further. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- just to note -- the final comment seems to say clarification not needed about this, but I did go back and saw more to talk about not directly related to the 'not clear' post here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
MOS:CURRENCY
I sympathise with your view that something like The Neptuno (symbol, ♆, ISO 4217 code EWN) is the currency of Erewhon
as an opening phrase is indeed rather deathly prose, especially as it duplicates the infobox. If there were to be a an advisory on it, MOS:CURRENCY would be the place for it but right now it has nothing to say. So if you want to pursue the question, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers would be the place to raise it. I guess one immediate riposte would be that the phrase in parentheses provides a landing zone for the (fictitious) Neptuno and EWN (currency) redirects. So you would need to anticipate that one in your proposal. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)