QUOTE(guy @ Sun 13th July 2008, 2:30pm)
QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:26pm)
Would that be "in America -- for example"?
If you wish. Obviously it would make equally little sense in Uzbekistan. However, I believe that there will be more readers of the English Wikipedia in America.
I kinda took those thoughts as comparison of terms between the dispute of the Isles and the Americas.
Would on say that Salt Lake Temple is the oldest mormon temple in all of the Americas just because it is the oldest in North America?
Would on say it is the oldest on Earth?
Instead of different versions of one sentence that either state largest in X or the largest in Y, there may be instances where both need to be combined in some way. The largest in the X and Y. It appears that there is some wording to solve it that may be a mouthful, but this is written words that require no mouth to move where fingers do the work instead.
The temple is the oldest in North America[1], and it is the only temple known to have existed on the entire Earth when it was created[2].That solves one issue, but there is another issue to address old terms with newer terms.
The temple is the oldest in North America[1], and it is the only temple known to have existed on the entire Earth when it was created[2]. It is also said to be the oldest in the Americas.[3]We don't see much of a word dispute between calling something
North America or
Americas as we see with the
British Isles or the
United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland. I can imagine, in comparison of the dispute, someone will make another version of the above, like:
The temple is the oldest in Americas[3], and it is the only temple known to have existed on the entire Earth when it was created[2]. It is also said to be the oldest in the North America.[1]Later, someone else will make another revision and delete the last sentence as superfluous, and drops the source.
The temple is the oldest in Americas[3], and it is the only temple known to have existed on the entire Earth when it was created[2].Again, much later, were back to somebody else pointing out a source that says North America instead of Americas, and makes the change:
The temple is the oldest in North America[1], and it is the only temple known to have existed on the entire Earth when it was created[2].At this point, we can see the whole thing becomes circular. People get frustrated because everybody is right. The circle continues until someone gets banned, and that banned user gets labeled with "disruptive troll" (a BLP issue), which makes the whole situation even worse. One of the edits was done by the banned user, so it gets removed in some
end justify the means shout out:
The temple is the oldest in North America[1].Kids are now wondering why just North America. There were 3 references that they could have studied, but now they are down to just one when they look at the article. Not only does the banned user suffer, but Wikipedia suffers for lack of references. That is where Wikipedia becomes more of a MMORPG and need a serious reality check.
QUOTE(ComeGetMe @ Sun 13th July 2008, 3:19pm)
And how do we knoe Goldheart isnt Bardcom? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
How do we know Gold Heart isn't SirFozzie and Bardcom isn't Alison?
This post has been edited by Dzonatas: