User talk:Jerzy/Al-Khwarizmi/Al-Khawarizmi

If you add to this discussion, participants will be aware of it much sooner if you also edit the similarly named sections on their respective talk pages (each such section being linked as "*" below), e.g. by updating the edit count and/or editing-time-stamp range there.

• 4 msgs, 05:21, 8 thru 12:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. 05:21, 8 May 2005 J
  2. 16:11, 8 May 2005 K
  3. 17:12, 8 May 2005 J
  4. 12:32, 9 May 2005 K
• 2 participants: Jerzy~t~*; Khalid hassani~t~*
• general topics: c&p moves; title spellings; user-talk protocols

Hi, Khalid, and thanks for taking an interest in this article. I hope you won't be discouraged at my reverting your renaming, and in any case i think you're entitled to a pair of explanations:

1. We call what you did a cut-and-paste move; i'm sure you'll find that descriptive, but more to the point, that is in contrast to a "Move this page"-tool move (or rename), the link for which you will find on every edit or display screen for a page (other than so-called special pages). You might want to follow that link (one click only; going much further can complicate things, including need for an admin to put it back) just to get a feel for it, as a preview to speed your getting comfortable with it for the next time when you consider renaming. Renaming an article must always be done with the move tool because the provisions of the GFDL require keeping authorship information available: that is a major reason for the "Page history" lks on the same pages. "Move this page" automatically brings along the history when the content moves to a new name.

   (You'll also notice that by default it brings along the corresponding talk page, which is of little legal importance but is important in practice for keeping available the reasons content decisions are made, to avoid having to repeat the same debates and clarifications. Probably 95% of the time your want the talk page to go along; IMO most of the exceptions have to do with dab (disambiguation).)

2. I haven't reviewed it to be sure, but there may be previous discussion, at Talk:Al-Khwarizmi, of the choice of title. I don't mean to suggest that the information about "Al-Khawarizmi" being a better transliteration is not valuable to WP. Nevertheless, our working principle is that improving standards of accuracy in naming is secondary at best to our goal of providing quick, smooth access to information seekers. The redirect page at Al-Khawarizmi is there to see that better informed users who type the name into the "Go" box on most pages don't just "fall of the edge of" the 'Pedia. But we consider it important to have the more popular version comfortably at the top of the page in big friendly letters for the plurality and probably majority of users who will come looking for "Al-Khwarizmi" (or follow a lk to the article).

Now, of course, if you can come up with verification that we've been misjudging what the most frequent spelling is in English, that's an entirely different situation; i assumed you meant merely what you said (rather than basing it on info, new to us, about contemporary English usage), and thus i didn't consider doing a move-this-page to put the names back your way after undoing the cut-and-paste. (Another case of the principle, recently discussed: Hanover for Hannover, Germany; i think we've settled on Zürich, Switzerland, but only on the understanding that the diacritical mark on the U doesn't interfere with recognition of the name as a version of the arguably better known "Zurich".)

I'd also invite you (tho i try to always catch myself before saying "oh, you should edit thus and such", since only each editor themself knows what they should edit) to consider improving the discussion within the article about versions and pronunciations of the name; my recollection is that at best the information is poorly organized and could easily leave an impression of him using a bunch of aliases, bcz of our failure to clarify the roles of bin-, abu-, and al- in Arabic names. (That may even be something that extends to our coverage of Arabic name, which IMO is likely to deserve to be linked to from this and many other articles; i don't recall ever looking to see how bad that article is.)

Finally, just in case you have the interest, i'll draw your attention to our article on Harakat. Knowing about an ounce more than the zero that most native speakers of English know about vowel marks, i got involved peripherally with that article, and had the impression that it had been abandoned in mid-composition. IMO even a two-word evaluation of the article on its talk page could make a significant difference in the long run.
Thanks again, and i hope you won't see me as taunting you when i say "keep up the good work": you were following the dictum to "Edit boldly".
--Jerzy (t) 05:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy, and thank you for you long explanation :). Well I guess I have learned something new about the functionning of Wikipedia today, and I am sorry for my brutal move :). Anyway, as you have maybe noticed in my home page, I am a native arabic speaker, and I know for sure that arabic speakers do pronounce the a after Kh, in Al-Khwarizmi/Al-Khawarizmi, in French this is the cas too. I was not aware that Al-Khwarizmi was the more popular pronouciation in English, so if this is really the cas I have no objection against keeping that way.

I have replied to you in your talk page to be sure you get my answer, could you please tell me If this the way it sould be done ? would you have had a message notification if I have replied in my own talk page ?

Thanks --Khalid hassani 16:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Tnx, Khalid, and don't be too sorry; by committing to bold editing the community knew it was making various kinds of "brutal[ity]" inevitable; do you know the expression "Just part of the cost of doing business"? (To me that is another version of "You can't make an omelette (spelling?) without breaking eggs, but said from the point of view of the willing egg rather than the chef or diner. [smile])

Yes, your reply method is very standard; another approach is to reply on one's own page (in order to keep the discussion in one place, mostly for the benefit IMO of third parties who may follow it), which has at least three variations that you'll see:

1. Put a notification on the other user's talk page.
2. Assume the other user has read a prominent notice on your talk page, which says you are going to reply there, and count on them to take that into account.
3. Assume the other user will, without prompting, Watchlist your talk page at least for a while, and refer to your talk page's history if necessary, in order to notify themself of your response.

And of course 2 and 3 can be supplemented by keeping in mind the possibility they will wait for something on their talk page, and giving it to them eventually if they don't say anything further on your talk page.
I don't know whether your question might be partly prompted by the odd method i have be applying in the last day or so to unsolicited msg i get on my talk page. I will experiment shortly with extending my experiment to our case, where i started the conversation on your page. Your questions or feedback would be welcome.
Since you are, IMO wisely, concerned about user-talk protocols i'll recommend another aid that many of us provide as a courtesy: see, (as i remind myself by visitng Wikipedia:Preferences and then Wikipedia:User preferences help) m:Help:Preferences#Your nickname. By customizing your "nickname" in the clever fashion described, you can leave a lk to your talk page every time you use ~~~~ (or even ~~~ ) to sign a msg. Unless you have a big user page, it only saves your correspondent one click, but IMO it's at least a good gesture.
--Jerzy|t 17:12, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Thanks Jerzy for all your kind explanations, you seem to be a very active and informed Wikipedian. Yes Indeed I tend to be a quite bold editor :), this is for probably for historical reasons, I have been participating in mailing lists and forums for a while and I am quite used to express my opinion. Too bad I can't contribute very much to the English Wikipedia as my English is not that good, or more precisely, I consider it no being as good as I want :). Anyway keep in touch; I will study your replying technique thoroughly. --Khalid hassani 12:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)