This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
",," has been proposed as markup for the no-break space. Wikipedia has always been "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The markup for italics, bold, links and references can all be guessed by inspection, and those are all things that new users would want to do anyway. The meaning of ",," for a no-break space won't be clear from inspection, and it's not something most new users would want to do on their own. I notice that new markup for the no-width spaces, m-dash, n-dash were also proposed in the same discussion at Noetica/ActionMOSVP. I think if you fill up pages with markup that newer editors won't know until they read a markup manual, then we're no longer "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Worse, this markup doesn't consist of paired, enclosing symbols like all the markup I mentioned above, so to people who haven't read a manual, it's more likely to appear to be a typo or a remnant from previous editing than markup. We could of course force everyone to learn it before they do any editing, but Wikipedia hasn't done that before.
It seems to me that if more-experienced, higher-volume editors want markup that's easier on the eyes and fingers than what they've got now, they can use bots or keyboard remapping (I currently use abcTajpu for Firefox). Better yet, why not give everyone what they want, and make the edit screen user-toggle-able between "heavier" and "lighter" markup? I'm sympathetic to high-volume editors who would like special tools, but new users are very likely not to care, and to get distracted by the new markup. Anyone clued-in enough to understand the fight over no-break spaces can be clued-in enough to use a bot to help them edit.
If we can talk the techs into accepting a solution that will require more pre-processing, it would be really nice to join the modern world and have Mediawiki software calculate correctly where the lines should break. That is, there would be some page where we argue over the rules for no-break spacing, and those rules get applied to all pages. (So, p. #, # AD, # sq ft would all be examples.) Dank55 ( talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. I hope you will join in again now, as we approach a crucial vote.
Best wishes to you.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
'Nabend, Andreas...I noticed your deletion of the "Applications of Computer Vision" category at Robot. I notice we have some things in common, I am currently staffing the #wikia-de channel, I adopted robots.wikia.com, and I used to play chess :) So...freut mich, dich kennenzulernen. Back to the question: robots seem to be an application of computer vision to me, why do you think not? Since you didn't give a reason for the deletion, someone might revert it. — Dan Dank55 ( talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan! I looked robots.wikia.com, I like you idea to collect information and advices about robots, which can be used at home. I actually don't have any experience with home robots yet. One topic what I interested in is if Lego Mind Storms robots can be made to do something useful, or they are still just toys? I started a new topic in your forum [1]. Andreas Kaufmann ( talk) 09:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to working with you in kick-starting WP:ROBO. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I see you're back now. Hope you had a good break. Things have moved along with the hard space push, but it's never going to be simple, is it? Have you looked through the recent discussion at WT:MOS? I hope to see you there.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
{{ WikiProject Robotics}} should only be used on the articles' talk pages. Please do not tag them on the article itself, as it is unencyclopedic. Please review project tag placement guidelines. I'll revert your edits regarding those errors. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes being a roboticist is like being the only representative of a minority in a small town...all your neighbors seem to have an opinion on what your life means, and for some reason, they have no inhibitions about sharing. Can people understand that some of us are just trying to slog through a difficult subject and build useful gadgets that help people? It's really kind of annoying that, when we talk about what we do in a public space like Wikipedia, there are an endless stream of people who share some opinion that implies (or blatantly states) that we're responsible for the coming end of the world, or we're the geekiest of geeks, or any number of other half-assed opinions. There's a time and place for all those discussions, but many of us are just interested in doing something useful and don't really feel an obligation to heal the rift between technophiles and technophobes or walk people through their futureshock issues. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually saw it when I was reverting vandalism; I wasn't looking for grammatical mistakes, it was just one of the diffs the anti-vandal programme I use pulled up :) -- Farosdaughter ( talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"If any of you have any examples" at WT:WikiProject Robotics...I don't follow what you're saying. I repeat that I have read your userpage and seen your contributions many places (I've only been hanging around WP about 2 months, but I'm a fast reader), and I have enormous respect for your viewpoints and your contributions to WP. But I'm not entirely sure you get my point...it has nothing to do with robots, per se. It's about improving the quality of robotics articles on WP, and about not offending the people who have the talent to do the work, so that they stop cloistering in their own users groups and come over here and brave the WP-and-sister-sites culture. You may or may not have been calling me a dork for thinking this, I couldn't tell (which is certainly true sometimes.) When I talk in any forum where roboticists can hear me, I attempt to represent their views...partly because I think they don't do that great a job of representing their own views, they tend to simply withdraw, and I'm trying to lead by example. In other forums (like here), I'm more open to different viewpoints. Possibly I might even exhibit a sense of humor. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you're not a dork. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Your attempt may or may not be successful:
On that last point, though, it certainly is possible and if it happens, I'd like to see diffs. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fabrictramp, and I hope you're feeling okay. You may have just tagged Lawnbott because it's the right thing to do, given that I haven't added any links supporting notability yet, but now that you're involved, I'd appreciate your help in figuring out which robotics articles are notable, how best to support notability with links, and how to open lines of communication between roboticist and non-roboticist editors. Regarding Lawnbott, I created the article because there was a broken link to the non-existent article from Autonomous robots. I had already written a short article on the Lawnbott over at Wikia, because I considered it to be one of many "useful robots".
For a discussion about the needs of robotics editors, you might be interested in today's conversation here.
As an appliance, I suppose a Lawnbott might be no more notable than, say, a brand of washing machine. I note that Kenmore easily makes the notability requirement, so the question would involve sales figures and how well-known Lawnbotts are...and this is a very hard question to answer. There are several users groups for Lawnbotts, which I suppose makes them more notable in a way than Kenmore washing machines, but sales figures for Lawnbotts are not available, the best I can tell. But there's a different lens to view Lawnbotts through, as a representative of domestic robots. Are they a notable step from where we are now to what's coming next, or are they unimportant? That's probably a question best debated by roboticists, although of course the usual rules about doing it with the proper links apply. (copied at my userpage) - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Btw, thanks for that fantastic banner and for adding it to the random banner collection so everyone sees it. I've gotten a lot of nice support for our project today, notably here. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
OK... so I've began to assess the robotics articles. Please review the article assessment guidelines and help this WikiProject out by helping out with the following:
We need to get this article assessment drive going first before peer reviews and collaborations programs can be made.
Note: advertising for this WikiProject:
If you want to use it for our WikiProject advertisement, simple paste [[Image:Wikiprojectrobotics.png]]
to use this static banner.
Our ad is now in the
Wikipedia Ads circulation. Help promote WikiProject Robotics by displaying this image on your userpage, or to place Wikipedia Ads to your user page, you may add {{Wikipedia ads}}
.
{{Wikipedia ads|ad={{#switch:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROFEDITS:R}} mod 12}} <!-- mod 12 is the number of ads total--> |0=24 <!--Change the the ad number of your choice here. Remember, --> |1=45 <!--this is an array, so the count starts with 0, and ends --> |2=73 <!--with one number lower than the total number of ads. :-) --> |3=77 |4=86 |5=94 |6=104 |7=106 |8=116 |9=116 |10=116 |11=116}}}}
Please let me know if you have any questions. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the references David, I will fix Lawnbott tomorrow. Btw, I saw the reference to Google sketchup for dummies on your web page...thanks, I've ordered the book, I need to improve my skills. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(I'm keeping copies on both John Carter's userpage and mine) John Carter and Phoenix-wiki, I'd like to ask you both about the utility of the "article importance" rating that I recently commented-out of the Wikiproject Robotics template. My instinct is that the very last thing I need to hear is "Dan says my article is more important than yours". Did this fill any essential function in any previous Wikiproject? Is there some mistake we're likely to make because we misjudge the importance of Roomba or Robot? - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) FYI: I undid your comment-out on {{ WikiProject Robotics}} since articles listed with importance=blah still registered on the bot retrieval process regardless of the visual display of importance on the project tag, so I just undid it until we have a clear set of article guidelines to follow. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of your strong expression of support when I see a similar posting on the talk page of this Geometry person, who has just tried to sabotage the whole process. Very strange behaviour on your part. Tony (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[copied from Geometry Guy's page] I strongly support your take on things. Keep it up. If I had discovered WP two years ago, I would be giving you (and a few others) all the support I possibly could. I'm so involved with robotics now that I don't have the time to get into every conversation I want to, but please call on me for support at any time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please use your own sandbox to perform your own sandbox operations. Not only were you on the wrong Sandbox, but you were attempting to edit an archived backup of the old assessment policy that I was attempting to keep. I will undo the revisions you have made. Please do not attempt to revert my changes again. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[Copied at G-Guy's userpage] I mentioned that I had questions about how to do assessment on newbie articles...all solved now. I didn't realize there are 160 active wikiprojects on science, engineering and technology...they had all the answers I needed. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
At Wikiproject Robotics, we always welcome input from everyone who reviews new articles...we've got a bunch of newbies on the way (heads up :) and we'll need you guys to be on your toes. Why do you think the article about the Spyder is promotional? How would you review a robotic lawnmower that has not yet been released in a way that is not promotional? Btw, this is just a stub...extra information from a guy who has actually tested the product is on the way. Granted this article is the worst-sourced new article I've ever written...and I can't see how to avoid that with a consumer product which has not yet been released. But if you like, I'll be happy to dig harder. I combed the usual sites with not much luck. And P.S. ... issues about what sources are and are not valid for robotics articles is a subject that was recently discussed over at WP:AN ... if you're going to be reviewing our new articles often, you might want to read some of the discussion at WP:ROBO/ADMINLOG. I've copied this to my userpage, reply there please. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the process of trying to gather more references and also add some details to the review. If you guys get here before I get back, please note that our Wikiproject is trying to increase the number of technical articles on robotics, including and especially on home robotics. We create articles about products from all manufacturers, including (in this case) products that have been tested but not yet released, because that's what we study. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a recently relevant discussion over at WP:AN (which I referred you to), and this feels like part of that discussion to me, so I'm going to continue the conversation over there...even though WP:AN is usually for disputes and I'm not disputing what you did. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Dan, take a look at User:Jamesontai/Sandbox15. If you like this setup, I'll deploy it to actual templates. Also, these userboxes will automatically place the user into Category:WikiProject Robotics participants, so that page will no longer be empty! :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Kyberd is a marginally notable, but notable in my view, roboticist. He's worked with Kevin Warwick, for example. The checklist is:
I mention this case because in my view the subject is on the very limit of notability; in a deletion debate it could go either way without affecting the value of the encyclopaedia as a reference. Useful, somewhat interesting, but in the long tail of importance.
You need to make sure that your subjects are art least as well sourced as this, and with an emphasis on independence in the sources. Nothing based on press releases.
Otherwise you could try for a list of robots with a short para on each of them. Cruftbane 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all engineering related articles.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
(copied at his talkpage) I got the nicest email from Orangemike today, "I'm relieved to see that you will still be around, Dan. We need your kind of passion around here." Right back atcha, and please see my (short!) apology here. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dank55. I noticed you added your name to the paricipants list at WP:ENGINEERING and then later removed yourself. Can I ask if that was a mistake and you still intend to be part of the project or if you left. Thanks. Tbo 157 (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style. Geometry guy 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to leave wikiproject robotics. It's not a problem with Jameson, it's just that the wikiproject doesn't do what I hoped...I wanted to iron some things out in a general discussion rather than individually in each article, but I don't think it's going to happen, and judging from the histories in the articles I patrol, the issues tend to be different from article to article anyway. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dank55 <undisclosed email address> wrote:
Dan,
A copy of this conversation (I'll leave your email addy out of it, don't worry) is now on my talk page. Please continue the discussion there.
J (Copied to talk page). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[copied from Diligent Terrier's talk page] Why would someone typing in "WP:Home" be looking for homeschooling? Wouldn't they logically be looking for information related to a home? - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Let me know if you're ever interested in joining the WikiProject. DiligentTerrier • talk | sign here 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was actually going to create WP:HS, but that was already taken. Oh well, I guess it was have to be Wikipiedia:Homeschooling. DiligentTerrier • talk | sign here 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think i'm the best person to ask - you may wish to bring up the question on the Village Pump. And when I posted that question, WP:Semapedia was an article, not a project page. — Random832 19:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. DiligentTerrier • talk | sign here 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Dank, thanks for the note (regarding the MOS) at my talk. Since you offered :-) my biggest problem is at the admin who blocked me regarding a long running feud e.g. here. It just goes on and on forever, even glossing it is unreasonable. But you might take the time to read the item at the admin's talk, that's where the next shot will be fired if I interpret the ...aphorism? parable? correctly. And, go Duke :-) Pete St.John ( talk) 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done some work on it, any objections to removing your cleanup tag from last April? - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 04:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After reading your ideas, I was going to suggest the same, Geometry guy 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot ( talk)
Call me dumb, but I don't understand your conclusions from your last post. Does it mean that some/all of the issues, or even the whole proposal to audit bit by bit, is inappropriate? Can you be more explicit on the page? Tony (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You kindly answered my query on the talk page of WP:CITE. I did reply there, and would appreciate some feedback on how to resolve the problem. There is a fair amount of info out there I could use, but the problem is the source. Mjroots ( talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan, and thanks for offering to help with WP:1.0. Sorry I haven't been so active on wiki, I've been pretty busy behind the scenes lately, especially in chemistry - not many edits, but lots of emails and phone calls! I'll try and focus some more time on the style issues you mentioned soon. We should probably discuss this issue, so maybe I'll set up an IRC discussion with the publisher on this topic once things seem to be coming together. We should perhaps brainstorm some things first.
Right now we're looking at bot-assisted selection of articles, which has generated this list, based on quality and importance (more emphasis on the latter). What you think? (It's hard to jump into this right in the middle, but I'll explain it anyway in case you would like to try and pitch in.) Some WikiProjects assess for importance, but others don't, and we dealt with that by setting them all as "Mid" importance - but the net result is that important topics from non-assessing projects are receiving too low a score (see Camel or Rabbit under the Mammals project). I have requested that we adjust the formula so that we compensate for that better. Here are the formulae I'm proposing:
250*log_{10}(interwikis)
In other words, if all four parameters are available, we use all four. If the project assessment is not available, we use the other three and multiply the score by 4/3. This is not as crude as it sounds - the four parameters were designed to be fairly balanced. Walkerma ( talk) 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm, that's really screwy! Here is what the proposal says:
Since I am not in favor of having "only two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes" (because I am in favor of only one kind—unspaced), I voted "oppose".— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The end? I responded on my talk. The only reason I am writing this is because you may have unwatched it, assuming that our conversation was done. As far as I'm concerned, it is as of my last posting, but I would be happy to continue conversation with you if you have more to say. Please post there or e-mail me if you so desire. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant WP:STYLE1.0: Many people, including Jimbo, have previously concluded... Any reasonably civil name is acceptable for me, but I don't know where you got Rich; it ain't my name, and I've never used it. Septentrionalis was intended to be my username, and Pmanderson my login. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot ( talk)
That's an interesting thread you started at MoS. As in any good marriage, Sandy and I have frequent rows, but rumours of a divorce have been greatly exaggerated. Unless there is something that Sandy is not telling me... :-) Good luck with the thread: you may need it! All the best, Geometry guy 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm responding here rather than on that page to a question you asked. The scientific citation guidelines do cover the case of putting inline citations at the very beginning of the article to indicate general references. It's the section on uncontroversial knowledge; I think the example used there is the aldol reaction article.
There's a lot of good practice described at the SCG. In some cases, such as results named after individuals and experimental data, the guidelines go beyond WP:V by asking for additional inline citations. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have responded briefly; if you want more detail, let me know. Even briefer: you are ascribing to me things I did not say, or mean.
The position of moderates is just now difficult in most of the English-speaking world; but don't automatically see it here. (And it has been known that for moderates to get much of their program through by pointing at the radicals; if Gimmetrow and I did not exist, you might be being abused as an insane saboteur.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you were offering to help, I see now ... I didn't presume that. Let me see how it goes preparing Sandy's requested three-month list (Jan–Mar). If you're willing, I'd be most grateful if you were able to—say—identify styleguides you think are important enough to include. At the moment, my list is:
MOS main; MOSNUM; Layout; UE; NFC; FA Criteria (and instructions); FAR/C instructions.
I'm hoping that most will present nothing or little to note in the summary. Your feelings? Tony (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks for this; as someone told me lately, my talk page is like Village Pump Central, and I don't need more content there that is already being discussed elsewhere (same for the post just ahead of yours ... ) Sigh, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think anything is permanent, though. And I don't really intend to "diligently" pursue this if the community decides to keep it. It's only the (possibly temporary) removal of two words, that i only commented 2 or 3 times on, not a major policy change, but thanks anyway. Amerique dialectics 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan, sorry that no-one answered your query in the aircraft project, perhaps they did not know what to say. I would disagree that airliners or indeed most aircraft are robots, from quickly reading the robot and robotics articles the definition seems to require artificial intelligence. Modern aircraft are highly mechanised, computerised and complicated but almost always controlled by a human being either onboard or on the ground. Perhaps the nearest thing to a robot in the aircraft world is a cruise missile which guides itself to a target once fired. Robot or robotics are not terms used in the field of aviation (at least not in my experience). Hope that helps. Nimbus ( talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My blog is WeatherBoyKris. I don't update very often this time of year, mostly during the hurricane season. What is your's, if you have one? TheNobleSith ( talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
so what do you want! shall we use reversal of units. Sushant gupta ( talk) 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ick... hidden keywords...
What do you need those hyphens and nbsp's for? If you want a keworded setup: <span id="anchor id" style="display: none;">Keyword</span> However I would suggest you don't use the Keyword and just stick with hunting down anchors. <span id="anchor id" />. Dantman ( talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I proposed these changes because those are the correct abbreviations as laid out in the Oxford English Dictionary, the supreme authority in the English language. I have seen them used in many academic works, so they are standard. In general, the guidelines should, I believe, follow standard practice. Cheers EraNavigator ( talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I'll post a notice there now. EraNavigator ( talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you have joined and look forward to working with you on a mission soon! Geometry guy 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Dank, as my original post stated, all I have been trying to prove is that the current Wikipedia guideline is incorrect in two of its assumptions. First, that the use of lower cases letters to start French titles does not accurately represent the way those titles and styles were viewed in 17th and 18th century France. The way the present MOS is written states in a very rigid way that only one way of capitalization is correct. All it takes is a few samples to demonstrate how that type of blanket, absolutist statement is incorrect. I already had provided three examples of writing from the era in question to show that the people who actually possessed those titles did not follow present Wikipedia policy, and Hans provided the link to show that certain authors of published works from that era also did not use Wikipedia policy. I do think that his addition "clinches" my argument. In two different areas of French writing, personal writing and published writing, I think it has now been established that there was no hardcore rule in line with current Wikipedia policy. That is all I meant by my comment.
As far as modern usage goes, I recognize that at some later point French usage changed. My assumption is that after the change certain English-speaking academics jumped on the band wagon to enhance their academic credentials. Academics are constantly trying to re-invent history in order to attract publishers and gain tenure. Unfortunately, I think at times this leads to an unnecessary revisionism. In this case, I see no reason why the original methods of capitalization can't be used. Rather than distorting the information, it makes it more authentic. An academic might insist on a new methodology, whether in France or an English-speaking country, but that doesn't make the new methodology in line with either the original circumstances or with the methodology employed in popular English-language biographies where most English-speakers will get their information. BoBo ( talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I was just wondering what this survey is all about that you posted on the Campus of Texas A&M University talk page. Someone else posted it on another talk page, and no one ever leaves their username stamp. I don't know if this survey is legitimate or spam. Thanks. -- Eustress ( talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Question, it's sort of confusing on the survey note you left on Battle of Verrieres Ridge, so I'm just gonna ask: Where exactly are we supposed to reply to the survey? Cheers! Cam ( Chat) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14 days better? It's far too long. Tony (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hullo. I think the c/e is largely done on this page; would appreciate if you could revisit and indicate one way or the other. We are not all that senisitve, so it doesn't really matter what you say, we'll still be here when the sun rises again. Ceoil ( talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I even went into BOLD CAPS range there for emphasis ;-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
<font=3> Thanks for your comments and support -
Black Moshannon State Park made
featured article! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
---|
Pennsylvania State Parks Groundhog Award, with Featured Article Star | ||
This award is given with respect and admiration to Dank55 for assistance in helping Black Moshannon State Park become a Featured Article from Ruhrfisch and Dincher ( talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)) |
I’ve got an idea. Why not have a new show of hands on the proposal. If passed, this would declare that 1) Follow current literature as it now appears on MOSNUM is, for the moment, officially part of MOSNUM, and 2) that a green-div version of it shall be copied to Talk:MOSNUM and that all differences be hammered out there. This way, all differences must be worked out on Talk:MOSNUM before any changes are made to MOSNUM. If you like this, please run it by the others. Greg L ( talk) 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
",," has been proposed as markup for the no-break space. Wikipedia has always been "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The markup for italics, bold, links and references can all be guessed by inspection, and those are all things that new users would want to do anyway. The meaning of ",," for a no-break space won't be clear from inspection, and it's not something most new users would want to do on their own. I notice that new markup for the no-width spaces, m-dash, n-dash were also proposed in the same discussion at Noetica/ActionMOSVP. I think if you fill up pages with markup that newer editors won't know until they read a markup manual, then we're no longer "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Worse, this markup doesn't consist of paired, enclosing symbols like all the markup I mentioned above, so to people who haven't read a manual, it's more likely to appear to be a typo or a remnant from previous editing than markup. We could of course force everyone to learn it before they do any editing, but Wikipedia hasn't done that before.
It seems to me that if more-experienced, higher-volume editors want markup that's easier on the eyes and fingers than what they've got now, they can use bots or keyboard remapping (I currently use abcTajpu for Firefox). Better yet, why not give everyone what they want, and make the edit screen user-toggle-able between "heavier" and "lighter" markup? I'm sympathetic to high-volume editors who would like special tools, but new users are very likely not to care, and to get distracted by the new markup. Anyone clued-in enough to understand the fight over no-break spaces can be clued-in enough to use a bot to help them edit.
If we can talk the techs into accepting a solution that will require more pre-processing, it would be really nice to join the modern world and have Mediawiki software calculate correctly where the lines should break. That is, there would be some page where we argue over the rules for no-break spacing, and those rules get applied to all pages. (So, p. #, # AD, # sq ft would all be examples.) Dank55 ( talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. I hope you will join in again now, as we approach a crucial vote.
Best wishes to you.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
'Nabend, Andreas...I noticed your deletion of the "Applications of Computer Vision" category at Robot. I notice we have some things in common, I am currently staffing the #wikia-de channel, I adopted robots.wikia.com, and I used to play chess :) So...freut mich, dich kennenzulernen. Back to the question: robots seem to be an application of computer vision to me, why do you think not? Since you didn't give a reason for the deletion, someone might revert it. — Dan Dank55 ( talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan! I looked robots.wikia.com, I like you idea to collect information and advices about robots, which can be used at home. I actually don't have any experience with home robots yet. One topic what I interested in is if Lego Mind Storms robots can be made to do something useful, or they are still just toys? I started a new topic in your forum [1]. Andreas Kaufmann ( talk) 09:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to working with you in kick-starting WP:ROBO. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I see you're back now. Hope you had a good break. Things have moved along with the hard space push, but it's never going to be simple, is it? Have you looked through the recent discussion at WT:MOS? I hope to see you there.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
{{ WikiProject Robotics}} should only be used on the articles' talk pages. Please do not tag them on the article itself, as it is unencyclopedic. Please review project tag placement guidelines. I'll revert your edits regarding those errors. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes being a roboticist is like being the only representative of a minority in a small town...all your neighbors seem to have an opinion on what your life means, and for some reason, they have no inhibitions about sharing. Can people understand that some of us are just trying to slog through a difficult subject and build useful gadgets that help people? It's really kind of annoying that, when we talk about what we do in a public space like Wikipedia, there are an endless stream of people who share some opinion that implies (or blatantly states) that we're responsible for the coming end of the world, or we're the geekiest of geeks, or any number of other half-assed opinions. There's a time and place for all those discussions, but many of us are just interested in doing something useful and don't really feel an obligation to heal the rift between technophiles and technophobes or walk people through their futureshock issues. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually saw it when I was reverting vandalism; I wasn't looking for grammatical mistakes, it was just one of the diffs the anti-vandal programme I use pulled up :) -- Farosdaughter ( talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"If any of you have any examples" at WT:WikiProject Robotics...I don't follow what you're saying. I repeat that I have read your userpage and seen your contributions many places (I've only been hanging around WP about 2 months, but I'm a fast reader), and I have enormous respect for your viewpoints and your contributions to WP. But I'm not entirely sure you get my point...it has nothing to do with robots, per se. It's about improving the quality of robotics articles on WP, and about not offending the people who have the talent to do the work, so that they stop cloistering in their own users groups and come over here and brave the WP-and-sister-sites culture. You may or may not have been calling me a dork for thinking this, I couldn't tell (which is certainly true sometimes.) When I talk in any forum where roboticists can hear me, I attempt to represent their views...partly because I think they don't do that great a job of representing their own views, they tend to simply withdraw, and I'm trying to lead by example. In other forums (like here), I'm more open to different viewpoints. Possibly I might even exhibit a sense of humor. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you're not a dork. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Your attempt may or may not be successful:
On that last point, though, it certainly is possible and if it happens, I'd like to see diffs. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fabrictramp, and I hope you're feeling okay. You may have just tagged Lawnbott because it's the right thing to do, given that I haven't added any links supporting notability yet, but now that you're involved, I'd appreciate your help in figuring out which robotics articles are notable, how best to support notability with links, and how to open lines of communication between roboticist and non-roboticist editors. Regarding Lawnbott, I created the article because there was a broken link to the non-existent article from Autonomous robots. I had already written a short article on the Lawnbott over at Wikia, because I considered it to be one of many "useful robots".
For a discussion about the needs of robotics editors, you might be interested in today's conversation here.
As an appliance, I suppose a Lawnbott might be no more notable than, say, a brand of washing machine. I note that Kenmore easily makes the notability requirement, so the question would involve sales figures and how well-known Lawnbotts are...and this is a very hard question to answer. There are several users groups for Lawnbotts, which I suppose makes them more notable in a way than Kenmore washing machines, but sales figures for Lawnbotts are not available, the best I can tell. But there's a different lens to view Lawnbotts through, as a representative of domestic robots. Are they a notable step from where we are now to what's coming next, or are they unimportant? That's probably a question best debated by roboticists, although of course the usual rules about doing it with the proper links apply. (copied at my userpage) - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Btw, thanks for that fantastic banner and for adding it to the random banner collection so everyone sees it. I've gotten a lot of nice support for our project today, notably here. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
OK... so I've began to assess the robotics articles. Please review the article assessment guidelines and help this WikiProject out by helping out with the following:
We need to get this article assessment drive going first before peer reviews and collaborations programs can be made.
Note: advertising for this WikiProject:
If you want to use it for our WikiProject advertisement, simple paste [[Image:Wikiprojectrobotics.png]]
to use this static banner.
Our ad is now in the
Wikipedia Ads circulation. Help promote WikiProject Robotics by displaying this image on your userpage, or to place Wikipedia Ads to your user page, you may add {{Wikipedia ads}}
.
{{Wikipedia ads|ad={{#switch:{{#expr:{{NUMBEROFEDITS:R}} mod 12}} <!-- mod 12 is the number of ads total--> |0=24 <!--Change the the ad number of your choice here. Remember, --> |1=45 <!--this is an array, so the count starts with 0, and ends --> |2=73 <!--with one number lower than the total number of ads. :-) --> |3=77 |4=86 |5=94 |6=104 |7=106 |8=116 |9=116 |10=116 |11=116}}}}
Please let me know if you have any questions. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the references David, I will fix Lawnbott tomorrow. Btw, I saw the reference to Google sketchup for dummies on your web page...thanks, I've ordered the book, I need to improve my skills. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(I'm keeping copies on both John Carter's userpage and mine) John Carter and Phoenix-wiki, I'd like to ask you both about the utility of the "article importance" rating that I recently commented-out of the Wikiproject Robotics template. My instinct is that the very last thing I need to hear is "Dan says my article is more important than yours". Did this fill any essential function in any previous Wikiproject? Is there some mistake we're likely to make because we misjudge the importance of Roomba or Robot? - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) FYI: I undid your comment-out on {{ WikiProject Robotics}} since articles listed with importance=blah still registered on the bot retrieval process regardless of the visual display of importance on the project tag, so I just undid it until we have a clear set of article guidelines to follow. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of your strong expression of support when I see a similar posting on the talk page of this Geometry person, who has just tried to sabotage the whole process. Very strange behaviour on your part. Tony (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[copied from Geometry Guy's page] I strongly support your take on things. Keep it up. If I had discovered WP two years ago, I would be giving you (and a few others) all the support I possibly could. I'm so involved with robotics now that I don't have the time to get into every conversation I want to, but please call on me for support at any time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please use your own sandbox to perform your own sandbox operations. Not only were you on the wrong Sandbox, but you were attempting to edit an archived backup of the old assessment policy that I was attempting to keep. I will undo the revisions you have made. Please do not attempt to revert my changes again. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[Copied at G-Guy's userpage] I mentioned that I had questions about how to do assessment on newbie articles...all solved now. I didn't realize there are 160 active wikiprojects on science, engineering and technology...they had all the answers I needed. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
At Wikiproject Robotics, we always welcome input from everyone who reviews new articles...we've got a bunch of newbies on the way (heads up :) and we'll need you guys to be on your toes. Why do you think the article about the Spyder is promotional? How would you review a robotic lawnmower that has not yet been released in a way that is not promotional? Btw, this is just a stub...extra information from a guy who has actually tested the product is on the way. Granted this article is the worst-sourced new article I've ever written...and I can't see how to avoid that with a consumer product which has not yet been released. But if you like, I'll be happy to dig harder. I combed the usual sites with not much luck. And P.S. ... issues about what sources are and are not valid for robotics articles is a subject that was recently discussed over at WP:AN ... if you're going to be reviewing our new articles often, you might want to read some of the discussion at WP:ROBO/ADMINLOG. I've copied this to my userpage, reply there please. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the process of trying to gather more references and also add some details to the review. If you guys get here before I get back, please note that our Wikiproject is trying to increase the number of technical articles on robotics, including and especially on home robotics. We create articles about products from all manufacturers, including (in this case) products that have been tested but not yet released, because that's what we study. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a recently relevant discussion over at WP:AN (which I referred you to), and this feels like part of that discussion to me, so I'm going to continue the conversation over there...even though WP:AN is usually for disputes and I'm not disputing what you did. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Dan, take a look at User:Jamesontai/Sandbox15. If you like this setup, I'll deploy it to actual templates. Also, these userboxes will automatically place the user into Category:WikiProject Robotics participants, so that page will no longer be empty! :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Kyberd is a marginally notable, but notable in my view, roboticist. He's worked with Kevin Warwick, for example. The checklist is:
I mention this case because in my view the subject is on the very limit of notability; in a deletion debate it could go either way without affecting the value of the encyclopaedia as a reference. Useful, somewhat interesting, but in the long tail of importance.
You need to make sure that your subjects are art least as well sourced as this, and with an emphasis on independence in the sources. Nothing based on press releases.
Otherwise you could try for a list of robots with a short para on each of them. Cruftbane 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all engineering related articles.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
(copied at his talkpage) I got the nicest email from Orangemike today, "I'm relieved to see that you will still be around, Dan. We need your kind of passion around here." Right back atcha, and please see my (short!) apology here. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dank55. I noticed you added your name to the paricipants list at WP:ENGINEERING and then later removed yourself. Can I ask if that was a mistake and you still intend to be part of the project or if you left. Thanks. Tbo 157 (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style. Geometry guy 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to leave wikiproject robotics. It's not a problem with Jameson, it's just that the wikiproject doesn't do what I hoped...I wanted to iron some things out in a general discussion rather than individually in each article, but I don't think it's going to happen, and judging from the histories in the articles I patrol, the issues tend to be different from article to article anyway. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dank55 <undisclosed email address> wrote:
Dan,
A copy of this conversation (I'll leave your email addy out of it, don't worry) is now on my talk page. Please continue the discussion there.
J (Copied to talk page). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[copied from Diligent Terrier's talk page] Why would someone typing in "WP:Home" be looking for homeschooling? Wouldn't they logically be looking for information related to a home? - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Let me know if you're ever interested in joining the WikiProject. DiligentTerrier • talk | sign here 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was actually going to create WP:HS, but that was already taken. Oh well, I guess it was have to be Wikipiedia:Homeschooling. DiligentTerrier • talk | sign here 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think i'm the best person to ask - you may wish to bring up the question on the Village Pump. And when I posted that question, WP:Semapedia was an article, not a project page. — Random832 19:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. DiligentTerrier • talk | sign here 23:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Dank, thanks for the note (regarding the MOS) at my talk. Since you offered :-) my biggest problem is at the admin who blocked me regarding a long running feud e.g. here. It just goes on and on forever, even glossing it is unreasonable. But you might take the time to read the item at the admin's talk, that's where the next shot will be fired if I interpret the ...aphorism? parable? correctly. And, go Duke :-) Pete St.John ( talk) 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done some work on it, any objections to removing your cleanup tag from last April? - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 04:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After reading your ideas, I was going to suggest the same, Geometry guy 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot ( talk)
Call me dumb, but I don't understand your conclusions from your last post. Does it mean that some/all of the issues, or even the whole proposal to audit bit by bit, is inappropriate? Can you be more explicit on the page? Tony (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You kindly answered my query on the talk page of WP:CITE. I did reply there, and would appreciate some feedback on how to resolve the problem. There is a fair amount of info out there I could use, but the problem is the source. Mjroots ( talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan, and thanks for offering to help with WP:1.0. Sorry I haven't been so active on wiki, I've been pretty busy behind the scenes lately, especially in chemistry - not many edits, but lots of emails and phone calls! I'll try and focus some more time on the style issues you mentioned soon. We should probably discuss this issue, so maybe I'll set up an IRC discussion with the publisher on this topic once things seem to be coming together. We should perhaps brainstorm some things first.
Right now we're looking at bot-assisted selection of articles, which has generated this list, based on quality and importance (more emphasis on the latter). What you think? (It's hard to jump into this right in the middle, but I'll explain it anyway in case you would like to try and pitch in.) Some WikiProjects assess for importance, but others don't, and we dealt with that by setting them all as "Mid" importance - but the net result is that important topics from non-assessing projects are receiving too low a score (see Camel or Rabbit under the Mammals project). I have requested that we adjust the formula so that we compensate for that better. Here are the formulae I'm proposing:
250*log_{10}(interwikis)
In other words, if all four parameters are available, we use all four. If the project assessment is not available, we use the other three and multiply the score by 4/3. This is not as crude as it sounds - the four parameters were designed to be fairly balanced. Walkerma ( talk) 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm, that's really screwy! Here is what the proposal says:
Since I am not in favor of having "only two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes" (because I am in favor of only one kind—unspaced), I voted "oppose".— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The end? I responded on my talk. The only reason I am writing this is because you may have unwatched it, assuming that our conversation was done. As far as I'm concerned, it is as of my last posting, but I would be happy to continue conversation with you if you have more to say. Please post there or e-mail me if you so desire. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant WP:STYLE1.0: Many people, including Jimbo, have previously concluded... Any reasonably civil name is acceptable for me, but I don't know where you got Rich; it ain't my name, and I've never used it. Septentrionalis was intended to be my username, and Pmanderson my login. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot ( talk)
That's an interesting thread you started at MoS. As in any good marriage, Sandy and I have frequent rows, but rumours of a divorce have been greatly exaggerated. Unless there is something that Sandy is not telling me... :-) Good luck with the thread: you may need it! All the best, Geometry guy 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm responding here rather than on that page to a question you asked. The scientific citation guidelines do cover the case of putting inline citations at the very beginning of the article to indicate general references. It's the section on uncontroversial knowledge; I think the example used there is the aldol reaction article.
There's a lot of good practice described at the SCG. In some cases, such as results named after individuals and experimental data, the guidelines go beyond WP:V by asking for additional inline citations. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have responded briefly; if you want more detail, let me know. Even briefer: you are ascribing to me things I did not say, or mean.
The position of moderates is just now difficult in most of the English-speaking world; but don't automatically see it here. (And it has been known that for moderates to get much of their program through by pointing at the radicals; if Gimmetrow and I did not exist, you might be being abused as an insane saboteur.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you were offering to help, I see now ... I didn't presume that. Let me see how it goes preparing Sandy's requested three-month list (Jan–Mar). If you're willing, I'd be most grateful if you were able to—say—identify styleguides you think are important enough to include. At the moment, my list is:
MOS main; MOSNUM; Layout; UE; NFC; FA Criteria (and instructions); FAR/C instructions.
I'm hoping that most will present nothing or little to note in the summary. Your feelings? Tony (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks for this; as someone told me lately, my talk page is like Village Pump Central, and I don't need more content there that is already being discussed elsewhere (same for the post just ahead of yours ... ) Sigh, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think anything is permanent, though. And I don't really intend to "diligently" pursue this if the community decides to keep it. It's only the (possibly temporary) removal of two words, that i only commented 2 or 3 times on, not a major policy change, but thanks anyway. Amerique dialectics 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan, sorry that no-one answered your query in the aircraft project, perhaps they did not know what to say. I would disagree that airliners or indeed most aircraft are robots, from quickly reading the robot and robotics articles the definition seems to require artificial intelligence. Modern aircraft are highly mechanised, computerised and complicated but almost always controlled by a human being either onboard or on the ground. Perhaps the nearest thing to a robot in the aircraft world is a cruise missile which guides itself to a target once fired. Robot or robotics are not terms used in the field of aviation (at least not in my experience). Hope that helps. Nimbus ( talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My blog is WeatherBoyKris. I don't update very often this time of year, mostly during the hurricane season. What is your's, if you have one? TheNobleSith ( talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
so what do you want! shall we use reversal of units. Sushant gupta ( talk) 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ick... hidden keywords...
What do you need those hyphens and nbsp's for? If you want a keworded setup: <span id="anchor id" style="display: none;">Keyword</span> However I would suggest you don't use the Keyword and just stick with hunting down anchors. <span id="anchor id" />. Dantman ( talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I proposed these changes because those are the correct abbreviations as laid out in the Oxford English Dictionary, the supreme authority in the English language. I have seen them used in many academic works, so they are standard. In general, the guidelines should, I believe, follow standard practice. Cheers EraNavigator ( talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I'll post a notice there now. EraNavigator ( talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you have joined and look forward to working with you on a mission soon! Geometry guy 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Dank, as my original post stated, all I have been trying to prove is that the current Wikipedia guideline is incorrect in two of its assumptions. First, that the use of lower cases letters to start French titles does not accurately represent the way those titles and styles were viewed in 17th and 18th century France. The way the present MOS is written states in a very rigid way that only one way of capitalization is correct. All it takes is a few samples to demonstrate how that type of blanket, absolutist statement is incorrect. I already had provided three examples of writing from the era in question to show that the people who actually possessed those titles did not follow present Wikipedia policy, and Hans provided the link to show that certain authors of published works from that era also did not use Wikipedia policy. I do think that his addition "clinches" my argument. In two different areas of French writing, personal writing and published writing, I think it has now been established that there was no hardcore rule in line with current Wikipedia policy. That is all I meant by my comment.
As far as modern usage goes, I recognize that at some later point French usage changed. My assumption is that after the change certain English-speaking academics jumped on the band wagon to enhance their academic credentials. Academics are constantly trying to re-invent history in order to attract publishers and gain tenure. Unfortunately, I think at times this leads to an unnecessary revisionism. In this case, I see no reason why the original methods of capitalization can't be used. Rather than distorting the information, it makes it more authentic. An academic might insist on a new methodology, whether in France or an English-speaking country, but that doesn't make the new methodology in line with either the original circumstances or with the methodology employed in popular English-language biographies where most English-speakers will get their information. BoBo ( talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I was just wondering what this survey is all about that you posted on the Campus of Texas A&M University talk page. Someone else posted it on another talk page, and no one ever leaves their username stamp. I don't know if this survey is legitimate or spam. Thanks. -- Eustress ( talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Question, it's sort of confusing on the survey note you left on Battle of Verrieres Ridge, so I'm just gonna ask: Where exactly are we supposed to reply to the survey? Cheers! Cam ( Chat) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14 days better? It's far too long. Tony (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hullo. I think the c/e is largely done on this page; would appreciate if you could revisit and indicate one way or the other. We are not all that senisitve, so it doesn't really matter what you say, we'll still be here when the sun rises again. Ceoil ( talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I even went into BOLD CAPS range there for emphasis ;-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
<font=3> Thanks for your comments and support -
Black Moshannon State Park made
featured article! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
---|
Pennsylvania State Parks Groundhog Award, with Featured Article Star | ||
This award is given with respect and admiration to Dank55 for assistance in helping Black Moshannon State Park become a Featured Article from Ruhrfisch and Dincher ( talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)) |
I’ve got an idea. Why not have a new show of hands on the proposal. If passed, this would declare that 1) Follow current literature as it now appears on MOSNUM is, for the moment, officially part of MOSNUM, and 2) that a green-div version of it shall be copied to Talk:MOSNUM and that all differences be hammered out there. This way, all differences must be worked out on Talk:MOSNUM before any changes are made to MOSNUM. If you like this, please run it by the others. Greg L ( talk) 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)