This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The spelling of "counter-insurgency" and "counterinsurgency" is part of the American English Commonwealth English divide. As the subject (pun intended) is British and "the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article"( WP:MOS) used Commonwealth spelling. I have reverted the change.
Google:
Even if one searches on the whole of the Google index the counterinsurgency is only slightly more common:
-- PBS 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightstallion (?) 09:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Robert Thompson (counterinsurgency) → Robert Thompson (counter-insurgency expert). Move back to the article name of before 23 January. Seems to be an American English, Commonwealth Engish issue. Subject of the article was British and "first major contributor" spelt the word "counter-insurgency" -- PBS 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
_ _ I've got no beef with the spelling, but the 6 syllables were already unnecessarily long, and going to 8 is worse. Some editors seem unaware that the suffix can be either a term of which the topic is an example, or a relevant context. My preference would be "(Malaya)", but if there is need to be broader than his most famous venue, why wouldn't "(guerillas)" do the job?
_ _ Of course i am making the point bcz i think either of these would be not simply adequate, but better: the job of a title is to be a short handle for referring to something too complex to describe each time interest in it arises, so brevity is inherantly desireable. Long titles take longer to read, even if you don't notice subjectively instantaneous events having different lengths, and parsing the relationship 3 words (or two and a prefix) instead of just reacting to one without parsing it (beyond "OK, that's all) takes unconscious mental effort.
_ _ I feel some hesitation to just move it, since the previous change has just been formally considered (or rather offered for consideration), but i think i'm being overscrupulous in not simply moving it. Further restraint will require arguments against short versions.
--
Jerzy•
t 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have finally found a source his full name was " Robert Grainger Ker Thompson" [1]This souce also includes his date of birth and death. -- PBS 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Date of birth and death needed.-- TGC55 16:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
See [2] Thompson | Sir | Robert Grainger Ker | 1916-1992 | Knight | writer -- PBS 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There are the major edits that created the list of publications.
There is a website called SpinProfiles which has a page called Robert Thompson an edit Revision as of 16:16, 7 March 2008 shows that part of this page was copied onto that site. -- PBS ( talk) 09:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Grainger Ker Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The spelling of "counter-insurgency" and "counterinsurgency" is part of the American English Commonwealth English divide. As the subject (pun intended) is British and "the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article"( WP:MOS) used Commonwealth spelling. I have reverted the change.
Google:
Even if one searches on the whole of the Google index the counterinsurgency is only slightly more common:
-- PBS 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightstallion (?) 09:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Robert Thompson (counterinsurgency) → Robert Thompson (counter-insurgency expert). Move back to the article name of before 23 January. Seems to be an American English, Commonwealth Engish issue. Subject of the article was British and "first major contributor" spelt the word "counter-insurgency" -- PBS 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
_ _ I've got no beef with the spelling, but the 6 syllables were already unnecessarily long, and going to 8 is worse. Some editors seem unaware that the suffix can be either a term of which the topic is an example, or a relevant context. My preference would be "(Malaya)", but if there is need to be broader than his most famous venue, why wouldn't "(guerillas)" do the job?
_ _ Of course i am making the point bcz i think either of these would be not simply adequate, but better: the job of a title is to be a short handle for referring to something too complex to describe each time interest in it arises, so brevity is inherantly desireable. Long titles take longer to read, even if you don't notice subjectively instantaneous events having different lengths, and parsing the relationship 3 words (or two and a prefix) instead of just reacting to one without parsing it (beyond "OK, that's all) takes unconscious mental effort.
_ _ I feel some hesitation to just move it, since the previous change has just been formally considered (or rather offered for consideration), but i think i'm being overscrupulous in not simply moving it. Further restraint will require arguments against short versions.
--
Jerzy•
t 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have finally found a source his full name was " Robert Grainger Ker Thompson" [1]This souce also includes his date of birth and death. -- PBS 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Date of birth and death needed.-- TGC55 16:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
See [2] Thompson | Sir | Robert Grainger Ker | 1916-1992 | Knight | writer -- PBS 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There are the major edits that created the list of publications.
There is a website called SpinProfiles which has a page called Robert Thompson an edit Revision as of 16:16, 7 March 2008 shows that part of this page was copied onto that site. -- PBS ( talk) 09:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Grainger Ker Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)