[mb-style] RFV: StylePrinciple

[Chris B]

On 15/02/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>  Hence why I say, it's an order of precedence and principles we all
>  >>  take for granted anyhow; I'm just looking to (finally) take off the
>  >>  "This is yet a ProposedStyleGuideline, although IMO it reflects a long
>  >>  existent consensus" that's been on that page at least since it was
>  >>  migrated from the old wiki on 2005-07-23, and mark this an official
>  >>  guideline.  Each of the 4 principles it describes already is an
>  >>  official philosophy/guideline, it's just the document which puts them
>  >>  into relationship between each other which is not.
>  >
>  >but it's *not* a styleguideline - it's a 'thing' to say when we defer
>  >to to the guidelines. putting it in the styleguidelines creates a
>  >recursive loop which as a programmer, makes my head hurt :)
>  >
>  >remove that phrase but don't add it to the styleguidelines category.
>  >maybe category philosphy?
>
>  I agree, the wording is badly chosen, both in the original note, and
>  in my referring to it as a guideline.  I would agree as well with that
>  sentiment - none of the 3 "superior" principles is a "guideline", but
>  rather, a "philosophy".  In actuality, StyleGuidelines is itself a
>  'philosophy' (clean data), with all of OfficialStyleGuidelines being a
>  part of it. So, if I may, let me amend the wording of the RFV, then,
>  to:
>
>  1) Removing that "proposed style guideline" phrase from the page
>  2) Making the page CategoryPhilosophy
>  3) Making official the ordering of the 4 philosophies described within the page
>
>  Note, however, this RFV is saying nothing about the philosophies
>  themselves, just their ordering.  The philosophies themselves can use
>  cleanup, as some have mentioned, but as Bram said, that's a whole
>  different series of RFCs/RFVs.  This is just talking about the
>  document describing the ordering of the 4 philosophies, not the
>  philosophies themselves.  While we may not have a clear definition of
>  ArtistIntent, I think we would all agree that, should we determine
>  ArtistIntent to be present, it would overrule any StyleGuidelines,
>  even if we can't quite yet define just what ArtistIntent actually is.

hehe, yeah i'd go for all this :)