| Revision as of 17:26, 24 October 2006 editPauric (talk | contribs)1,182 editsm →Survey: Forgot to sign← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:26, 24 October 2006 edit undoGuliolopez (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers108,061 edits →Discussion: notes on Serge's commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :# What any one of us thinks of "first" when we hear some word is irrelevant to deciding what the name of a Misplaced Pages article should be; there is no precedent for using the "what I think of first" basis. --] 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | :# What any one of us thinks of "first" when we hear some word is irrelevant to deciding what the name of a Misplaced Pages article should be; there is no precedent for using the "what I think of first" basis. --] 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :# The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the use of the term '''cork''' to refer to the material used to seal wine bottles is close to 100%. The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the city named '''Cork''' is vanishingly tiny, almost certainly less than 50%. Thus, the term belongs to the material per ]. --] 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | :# The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the use of the term '''cork''' to refer to the material used to seal wine bottles is close to 100%. The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the city named '''Cork''' is vanishingly tiny, almost certainly less than 50%. Thus, the term belongs to the material per ]. --] 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Hi Serge. Without wishing to get into a raging debate about it, I would offer a few comments on your notes above. | |||
| :::First off, while I voted oppositely to you, I agree with your point #1 above. It is true that "I think of meaning X first" is a weak statement and therefore a weak argument. However, that is the argument/vote/discussion topic that was put forward by the proposer: "''(That) The material is the the first meaning that comes to mind for most people''". | |||
| :::Regardless, there's no point in getting too caught up in debating etiquette, as I think that most contributors will recognise that the intent of the vote is to confirm a consensus on whether it is expected that visitors were more likely to have linked to the "Cork" page because their interpretation of the term "Cork" related to the bottle stopper, and not the city. | |||
| :::With regard to your point #2. I'm afraid I don't agree with your interpretation. ] does not prescribe any "percentage of speakers" which must use the term to decide on the best common name use. Rather, it suggests that ''Except where other accepted Misplaced Pages naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things''. Personally I think the first part of this is key, as another "accepted Misplaced Pages naming convention" (namely ]) suggests that "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Now I accept obviously that (probably because we're dealing with two meanings that fall under 2 different naming convention guidelines) these two naming convention guidelines don't mesh very well. They might even conflict. However, (and I hate to do this because I hate when people do this), in these cases it is suggested that you use a ] to resolve. And in the case of a , the use in relation to the city wins out. | |||
| ::: ] 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:26, 24 October 2006
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. Template:Wine
NPOV dispute
User Grick says: (NPOV, at least the 3rd paragraph)
- Actually, the cork industry harvests a completely renewable, non-toxic resource, and wastes essentially none of it. What doesn't go into corks gets turned into flooring and cork boards. The processing of corks (unlike for example the paper industry) is also environmentally friendly. Seriously, you don't get much more environmentally friendly than the cork industry. Environmentally, they're unimpeachable.
- I made a minor revision to the wording in an attempt to make the statement a little less glowing, but either way, it seems pretty honest and neutral to me. I suggest leaving the NPOV header in place for another 24 hours (Grick's edit + 48hrs) to give others a chance to consider the current wording. Gregmg 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I made one change, but its late and will make a couple more tomorrow - there are a few more areas where there are slight non-NPOV wordings. I dont think it is too bad though at the moment. Justinc 23:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I cut most of the paragraph saying cork related cork taint barely exists. I think the cork taint article is much better on discussing this and there is no need to duplicate it here.
When you guys get done gnashing about that, maybe somebody can attend to this cryptic wording: "sulfur dioxide (SO2) need to be different" ;Bear 05:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- sorry a word fell off into space. Justinc 09:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there a link between Cork City and the material? Julien Tuerlinckx 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Request for source regarding synthetic stoppers "downside"
The line "However, on the down side, both synthetic stoppers and screwcaps require different winemaking methods to some extent, as sulfur dioxide (SO2) levels need to be different, and there may be different wine faults due to oxidation or reduction." struck me as a little POV (neg. synthetic) and all around in need of some source citation. To my knowledge, the "change" in winemaking methods when using a synthetic stopper versus cork is quite minor. Also, the labeling of this as a "downside" is somewhat misleading. For instance, in the case of screw caps (which are less "breathable") you don't need as high of a level of sulfur dioxide to function as an anti-oxident. For people who are sulfite sensitive (wine headaches, etc) this can actually be an "upside". Agne 06:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Arabic word
This entry is in the category "Arabic words". While dictionary.com supports this, it would be nice if there were elaboration in the entry. --RealGrouchy 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
I hope I've gotten the forms filled out right on this; it's a little complicated following the steps, especially for multiple moves. Also, note two previous discussions at Talk:Cork (disambiguation). ENeville 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
Cork (material) → Cork — The material is the the first meaning that comes to mind for most people, if they're even aware of more than one meaning. Furthermore, even in the confines of the Cork (city) talk page, people already use the disambiguation "Cork City" to distinguish this meaning from County Cork. ENeville 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Survey
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
- Support Cork City already redirects to the article about the city named Cork, and should be the article name. It is often referred to as Cork City (much like New York City). But the material certainly is the most common use of the term. --Serge 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support - this is more notable than the city. --Yath 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think of the city first. Proteus (Talk) 09:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think of the city first. Vote: "leave as is". (Discussion points in related section below) Guliolopez 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. as per Guliolopez Frelke 11:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. the city comes first. ww2censor 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - City far more notable than the material. There's already a disambig page quoted on both anyway - Alison 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Guliolopez's points below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Outside of Ireland, how many people know that Cork exists as a place? It's not fair on the rest of the world, if yanks had a city called Glass, I'd be pissed off to see it there ahead of the material. Pauric 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
Add any additional comments:
- Points to support Oppose votes above:
- I think of the city first. (Over the material and the county as argued by proposer)
- Existing naming is not without precedence: Limerick (links to IE city and not Limerick (poetry)), Bath (links to UK city and not the plumbing fixture or anything else), Wells (precedence for UK city and not anything else). Manta (links to city in Ecuador and not anything else), Nice (links to FR city and not others), etc, etc.
- Even if this were to be redirected, I don't agree with argument that it should be redirected to Cork (material). Cork (tissue) (that which Cork is made from) is just as valid.
- Points to support Support votes above:
- What any one of us thinks of "first" when we hear some word is irrelevant to deciding what the name of a Misplaced Pages article should be; there is no precedent for using the "what I think of first" basis. --Serge 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the use of the term cork to refer to the material used to seal wine bottles is close to 100%. The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the city named Cork is vanishingly tiny, almost certainly less than 50%. Thus, the term belongs to the material per WP:NC(CN). --Serge 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Serge. Without wishing to get into a raging debate about it, I would offer a few comments on your notes above.
- First off, while I voted oppositely to you, I agree with your point #1 above. It is true that "I think of meaning X first" is a weak statement and therefore a weak argument. However, that is the argument/vote/discussion topic that was put forward by the proposer: "(That) The material is the the first meaning that comes to mind for most people".
- Regardless, there's no point in getting too caught up in debating etiquette, as I think that most contributors will recognise that the intent of the vote is to confirm a consensus on whether it is expected that visitors were more likely to have linked to the "Cork" page because their interpretation of the term "Cork" related to the bottle stopper, and not the city.
- With regard to your point #2. I'm afraid I don't agree with your interpretation. WP:NC(CN) does not prescribe any "percentage of speakers" which must use the term to decide on the best common name use. Rather, it suggests that Except where other accepted Misplaced Pages naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Personally I think the first part of this is key, as another "accepted Misplaced Pages naming convention" (namely Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (city names)) suggests that "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Now I accept obviously that (probably because we're dealing with two meanings that fall under 2 different naming convention guidelines) these two naming convention guidelines don't mesh very well. They might even conflict. However, (and I hate to do this because I hate when people do this), in these cases it is suggested that you use a Google test to resolve. And in the case of a google test for cork, the use in relation to the city wins out.
- Guliolopez 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)