This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi,
Just FYI, XHTML does allow <p> elements to occur inside <li> elements. The relevant declarations from the XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD (taken from http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html) are grouped here for your convenience:
<!ENTITY % block "p | %heading; | div | %lists; | %blocktext; | fieldset | table"> <!ENTITY % Flow "(#PCDATA | %block; | form | %inline; | %misc;)*"> <!ELEMENT li %Flow;>
Expanding the parameter entities defined in the first two declarations, we see that the third declaration is equivalent to:
<!ELEMENT li (#PCDATA | p | %heading; | div | %lists; | %blocktext; | fieldset | table | form | %inline; | %misc;)*>
which is either an invalid declaration (if there's something wrong with one of the parameter entities — unlikely, IMHO, though I'll admit that I've not scoured the DTD looking for errors on the W3C's part), or a mixed-content element declaration for <li> elements, with <p> elements being among the permitted child elements.
— Ruakh TALK 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A page you nominated for deletion has been renominated. To take part in the discussion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination). Lurker ( said · done) 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi: I have removed my attempt at fact-checking the article, and I apologize for not having been more complete. I should note, however, that my summary on removing the no-wiki comment ("remove no-wiki comment") was arguably more precise than yours on placing it there ("just some general improvements"). I should note also that you added a citation tag to a sentence that you added in January. Having noted these things, I leave the article to more capable editors. Jlittlet 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, SMcCandlish. I'm touched, and thankful for your authoritative input. Me? I'm just a technician with a few ideas. Tony (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to thank you for your change to the title on the MOSNUM talk page :-) Thunderbird2 09:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with people on inappropriate image-deleting sprees, the best place to take it up is probably WT:NFC. Though you may need a leather hide and some persistance, if you're going to take on the "no fair use" and "any procedural irregularity demands instant annihilation" brigade. Types like Zscout will eventually respect consensus, if you can achieve it there. Jheald 10:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
see!?? BTW-- Wake UP! <g> Cheers! // Fra nkB 19:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 005}}
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section
here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated
R Delivery Bot
15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
Hmm? That is a few days old now. I have fixed my signature, EVula gave it the thumbs up. Doyley Talk 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not difficult to agree with. The only things I object to in the MOS are prescriptive rules which are not in fact the consensus of English usage as a whole. Either stick to what English always does, or use normally or we recommend, and I will not dispute it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see WT:ELG, WT:FLAG, and my talk. FLAG is still a proposed guideline, and even though there may be consensus there, it doesn't apply yet. There are already others objecting to your changes, visually obvious or not. O 2 ( ? • ?) 00:10, 14 October 2007 (GMT)
Howdy, just fyi, I reverted and commented at Template talk:Intro#Shortcut dablink. I can't think of a good solution atm. -- Quiddity 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) well done on this, you put alot of effort into it.-- Padraig 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Nonbreaking spaces, and also at a few of the exit lists that use the template (check that the template is used in the exit list, not only in the infobox) to make sure I placed the nbsps correctly? Thank you. -- NE2 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:NY-100.svg" class="image" title="NY-100.svg"><img alt="" src="25px-NY-100.svg.png" width="25" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:NY-119.svg" class="image" title="NY-119.svg"><img alt="" src="25px-NY-119.svg.png" width="25" height="20" border="0" /></a> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_State_Route_100" title="New York State Route 100">NY 100</a></span>/<span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_State_Route_119" title="New York State Route 119">NY 119</a></span><span style="white-space:nowrap"> (Tarrytown Road)</span><br /> </nowiki>
<span style="white-space:nowrap">...</span>
(i.e. a "nowiki" in the template code) enclosing the first shield through ...NY 100</a></span>/
, to a) Keep the icons from ever being separated from the beginning of the text, and to keep the "/" attached to the first of the text as well.{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#if:{{{to2|}}}| to |{{#if:{{{name1|}}}{{{dir1|}}}| / |/}}}}
which appear to only put spacing around the "/" sometimes. I think it would be more readable if spaced. If done that way, I think some of this code would be redundant since it would be saying "if x applies, do this, and if it doesn't apply, do the same thing". A non-breaking space appears before "(Tarrytown Road)", as the #160 entity instead of the nbsp entity. Not sure why or where that came from without looking at the template code again, but it is already in a nowrap so it doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Doesn't hurt anything though.{{jct | state=CA | I | 40 | I | 280 | I | 80 | dir1=E | dir2=N | dir3=W | to1=yes | name1=name1 | name2=name2 | name3=name3 | city1=city1 | city2=city2 | city3=city3 | city4=city4 }}
Rendered code:
<a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-40_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-40 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="20px-I-40_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="20" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-280_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-280 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="24px-I-280_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="24" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-80_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-80 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="20px-I-80_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="20" height="20" border="0" /></a> To <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_40_%28California%29" title="Interstate 40 (California)">I-40</a></span> E<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name1)</span> to <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_280_%28California%29" title="Interstate 280 (California)">I-280</a></span> N<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name2)</span> to <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_80_%28California%29" title="Interstate 80 (California)">I-80</a></span> W<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name3)</span>, road – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City1%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City1, California">city1</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City2%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City2, California">city2</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City3%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City3, California">city3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City4%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City4, California">city4</a>
Okay, so I think what we are aiming for something more like this (additions in ALL CAPS though of course that would be wrong as real code):
<SPAN STYLE="WHITE-SPACE:NOWRAP"><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-40_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-40 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="20px-I-40_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="20" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-280_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-280 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="24px-I-280_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="24" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-80_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-80 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="20px-I-80_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="20" height="20" border="0" /></a> To <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_40_%28California%29" title="Interstate 40 (California)">I-40</a></span></SPAN> E<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name1)</span> to <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_280_%28California%29" title="Interstate 280 (California)">I-280</a></span> N<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name2)</span> to <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_80_%28California%29" title="Interstate 80 (California)">I-80</a></span> W<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name3)</span>, road – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City1%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City1, California">city1</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City2%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City2, California">city2</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City3%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City3, California">city3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City4%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City4, California">city4</a>
Depending on exactly how the template is using that other template to get the goods, that new </span>
might have to be even later. The rendered markup is a little redundant in parts, but this is unavoidable without having this template send the embedded one a new value telling it not to make its own nowrap spans, and of course that second template would have to be modified to be able to process that. Probably not worth the trouble. Ideally, it would be best if the N/S/E/W stuff was inside the nowrap span of the "I-40" stuff; I'm skeptical that <span style="white-space:nowrap;">something</span> something else
would not break between "something" and "something else" in some browsers. Maybe not enough of big deal to worry about.
Was this any help? — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. It's good to see you trying to clean up those Method acting and Stanislavski's 'system' articles. However, looking at the last edits on the Stan. I've reverted them. Your changes are not in line with standard critical usage. If you'd like the citations, let me know. But it is Stanislavski's 'system' - lower case and 'marked', and it is the Method - capitalized. You were also confusing a "quotation" with a word 'used' in a unusual way. Regards, DionysosProteus 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You and Noetica have been doing a fine job in overhauling the page: great to see. I do have a few concerns about the ellipsis section, now that I'm back on Earth after a horrendous deadline-week in the real world. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding it. Tony (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[Thanks for your note at my talk page. Here is my answer, as I have posted there.]
SMcCandlish:
Thank you for bringing your issues here. Here are some particular replies to things you say above:
Now, is that all? I have other things to do.
– Noetica?? Talk 12:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing's for sure: we both talk a lot. I'm going to stop in a moment, now that feelings are sufficiently vented. I strongly disagree with your analysis at several points – to the extent that it can properly be called "analysis", rather than wild surmises and allegations about, for example, my "demanding" not to have my contributions edited! But there is obviously no point labouring things. Thanks once more for bringing the dispute here instead of clogging the MOS talk page, which is already overflowing. I don't know how much useful collaboration we can do, since I find your style as repellent as you find mine. And I judge you as self-deceiving as you judge me! Enjoy your editing at Wikipedia. Let's learn and move on.
– Noetica?? Talk 20:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi SMcC—It's been about to happen for weeks. Does one post a "speedydelete" at the top of the page, or what? Only an admin can do it, I suppose. Tony (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been complaining about how we need more admins, and I am going to do something about it, so I have picked some of the best editors I've spotted who have expressed a previous interest in gaining the extra buttons. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2 needs to turn blue so it can pass, I think. Would you like me to nominate you? I have no doubts you'd sail through this time round. Neil ? 10:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
the 'system'
notation (aside from using single quotations marks against MOS) is that it violates
WP:NPOV. Theatre press publication do not have an NPOV rule, so this problem does not arise there. As for the MOS quotation marks and use–mention distinction stuff, I normally refuse to do people's guideline homework for them, but I'll make an exception in this case. Will take a few minutes. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Make that several hours; got sidetracked. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Double or single
Quotations are enclosed within "double quotes". Quotations within quotations are enclosed within 'single quotes'.
The term quotation(s) in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as for song/chapter/episode titles, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, "scare-quoted" passages and constructed examples.
This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi,
Just FYI, XHTML does allow <p> elements to occur inside <li> elements. The relevant declarations from the XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD (taken from http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html) are grouped here for your convenience:
<!ENTITY % block "p | %heading; | div | %lists; | %blocktext; | fieldset | table"> <!ENTITY % Flow "(#PCDATA | %block; | form | %inline; | %misc;)*"> <!ELEMENT li %Flow;>
Expanding the parameter entities defined in the first two declarations, we see that the third declaration is equivalent to:
<!ELEMENT li (#PCDATA | p | %heading; | div | %lists; | %blocktext; | fieldset | table | form | %inline; | %misc;)*>
which is either an invalid declaration (if there's something wrong with one of the parameter entities — unlikely, IMHO, though I'll admit that I've not scoured the DTD looking for errors on the W3C's part), or a mixed-content element declaration for <li> elements, with <p> elements being among the permitted child elements.
— Ruakh TALK 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A page you nominated for deletion has been renominated. To take part in the discussion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination). Lurker ( said · done) 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi: I have removed my attempt at fact-checking the article, and I apologize for not having been more complete. I should note, however, that my summary on removing the no-wiki comment ("remove no-wiki comment") was arguably more precise than yours on placing it there ("just some general improvements"). I should note also that you added a citation tag to a sentence that you added in January. Having noted these things, I leave the article to more capable editors. Jlittlet 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, SMcCandlish. I'm touched, and thankful for your authoritative input. Me? I'm just a technician with a few ideas. Tony (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to thank you for your change to the title on the MOSNUM talk page :-) Thunderbird2 09:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with people on inappropriate image-deleting sprees, the best place to take it up is probably WT:NFC. Though you may need a leather hide and some persistance, if you're going to take on the "no fair use" and "any procedural irregularity demands instant annihilation" brigade. Types like Zscout will eventually respect consensus, if you can achieve it there. Jheald 10:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
see!?? BTW-- Wake UP! <g> Cheers! // Fra nkB 19:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 005}}
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section
here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated
R Delivery Bot
15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
Hmm? That is a few days old now. I have fixed my signature, EVula gave it the thumbs up. Doyley Talk 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not difficult to agree with. The only things I object to in the MOS are prescriptive rules which are not in fact the consensus of English usage as a whole. Either stick to what English always does, or use normally or we recommend, and I will not dispute it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see WT:ELG, WT:FLAG, and my talk. FLAG is still a proposed guideline, and even though there may be consensus there, it doesn't apply yet. There are already others objecting to your changes, visually obvious or not. O 2 ( ? • ?) 00:10, 14 October 2007 (GMT)
Howdy, just fyi, I reverted and commented at Template talk:Intro#Shortcut dablink. I can't think of a good solution atm. -- Quiddity 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) well done on this, you put alot of effort into it.-- Padraig 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Nonbreaking spaces, and also at a few of the exit lists that use the template (check that the template is used in the exit list, not only in the infobox) to make sure I placed the nbsps correctly? Thank you. -- NE2 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
<dd><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:NY-100.svg" class="image" title="NY-100.svg"><img alt="" src="25px-NY-100.svg.png" width="25" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:NY-119.svg" class="image" title="NY-119.svg"><img alt="" src="25px-NY-119.svg.png" width="25" height="20" border="0" /></a> <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_State_Route_100" title="New York State Route 100">NY 100</a></span>/<span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=New_York_State_Route_119" title="New York State Route 119">NY 119</a></span><span style="white-space:nowrap"> (Tarrytown Road)</span><br /> </nowiki>
<span style="white-space:nowrap">...</span>
(i.e. a "nowiki" in the template code) enclosing the first shield through ...NY 100</a></span>/
, to a) Keep the icons from ever being separated from the beginning of the text, and to keep the "/" attached to the first of the text as well.{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#if:{{{to2|}}}| to |{{#if:{{{name1|}}}{{{dir1|}}}| / |/}}}}
which appear to only put spacing around the "/" sometimes. I think it would be more readable if spaced. If done that way, I think some of this code would be redundant since it would be saying "if x applies, do this, and if it doesn't apply, do the same thing". A non-breaking space appears before "(Tarrytown Road)", as the #160 entity instead of the nbsp entity. Not sure why or where that came from without looking at the template code again, but it is already in a nowrap so it doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Doesn't hurt anything though.{{jct | state=CA | I | 40 | I | 280 | I | 80 | dir1=E | dir2=N | dir3=W | to1=yes | name1=name1 | name2=name2 | name3=name3 | city1=city1 | city2=city2 | city3=city3 | city4=city4 }}
Rendered code:
<a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-40_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-40 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="20px-I-40_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="20" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-280_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-280 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="24px-I-280_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="24" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-80_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-80 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="20px-I-80_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="20" height="20" border="0" /></a> To <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_40_%28California%29" title="Interstate 40 (California)">I-40</a></span> E<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name1)</span> to <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_280_%28California%29" title="Interstate 280 (California)">I-280</a></span> N<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name2)</span> to <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_80_%28California%29" title="Interstate 80 (California)">I-80</a></span> W<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name3)</span>, road – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City1%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City1, California">city1</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City2%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City2, California">city2</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City3%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City3, California">city3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City4%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City4, California">city4</a>
Okay, so I think what we are aiming for something more like this (additions in ALL CAPS though of course that would be wrong as real code):
<SPAN STYLE="WHITE-SPACE:NOWRAP"><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-40_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-40 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="20px-I-40_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="20" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-280_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-280 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="24px-I-280_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="24" height="20" border="0" /></a><a href="/info/en/?search=Image:I-80_%28CA%29.svg" class="image" title="I-80 (CA).svg"><img alt="" src="20px-I-80_%28CA%29.svg.png" width="20" height="20" border="0" /></a> To <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_40_%28California%29" title="Interstate 40 (California)">I-40</a></span></SPAN> E<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name1)</span> to <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_280_%28California%29" title="Interstate 280 (California)">I-280</a></span> N<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name2)</span> to <span style="white-space:nowrap"><a href="/info/en/?search=Interstate_80_%28California%29" title="Interstate 80 (California)">I-80</a></span> W<span style="white-space:nowrap"> (name3)</span>, road – <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City1%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City1, California">city1</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City2%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City2, California">city2</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City3%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City3, California">city3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=City4%2C_California&action=edit" class="new" title="City4, California">city4</a>
Depending on exactly how the template is using that other template to get the goods, that new </span>
might have to be even later. The rendered markup is a little redundant in parts, but this is unavoidable without having this template send the embedded one a new value telling it not to make its own nowrap spans, and of course that second template would have to be modified to be able to process that. Probably not worth the trouble. Ideally, it would be best if the N/S/E/W stuff was inside the nowrap span of the "I-40" stuff; I'm skeptical that <span style="white-space:nowrap;">something</span> something else
would not break between "something" and "something else" in some browsers. Maybe not enough of big deal to worry about.
Was this any help? — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. It's good to see you trying to clean up those Method acting and Stanislavski's 'system' articles. However, looking at the last edits on the Stan. I've reverted them. Your changes are not in line with standard critical usage. If you'd like the citations, let me know. But it is Stanislavski's 'system' - lower case and 'marked', and it is the Method - capitalized. You were also confusing a "quotation" with a word 'used' in a unusual way. Regards, DionysosProteus 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You and Noetica have been doing a fine job in overhauling the page: great to see. I do have a few concerns about the ellipsis section, now that I'm back on Earth after a horrendous deadline-week in the real world. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding it. Tony (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[Thanks for your note at my talk page. Here is my answer, as I have posted there.]
SMcCandlish:
Thank you for bringing your issues here. Here are some particular replies to things you say above:
Now, is that all? I have other things to do.
– Noetica?? Talk 12:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing's for sure: we both talk a lot. I'm going to stop in a moment, now that feelings are sufficiently vented. I strongly disagree with your analysis at several points – to the extent that it can properly be called "analysis", rather than wild surmises and allegations about, for example, my "demanding" not to have my contributions edited! But there is obviously no point labouring things. Thanks once more for bringing the dispute here instead of clogging the MOS talk page, which is already overflowing. I don't know how much useful collaboration we can do, since I find your style as repellent as you find mine. And I judge you as self-deceiving as you judge me! Enjoy your editing at Wikipedia. Let's learn and move on.
– Noetica?? Talk 20:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi SMcC—It's been about to happen for weeks. Does one post a "speedydelete" at the top of the page, or what? Only an admin can do it, I suppose. Tony (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been complaining about how we need more admins, and I am going to do something about it, so I have picked some of the best editors I've spotted who have expressed a previous interest in gaining the extra buttons. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2 needs to turn blue so it can pass, I think. Would you like me to nominate you? I have no doubts you'd sail through this time round. Neil ? 10:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
the 'system'
notation (aside from using single quotations marks against MOS) is that it violates
WP:NPOV. Theatre press publication do not have an NPOV rule, so this problem does not arise there. As for the MOS quotation marks and use–mention distinction stuff, I normally refuse to do people's guideline homework for them, but I'll make an exception in this case. Will take a few minutes. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Make that several hours; got sidetracked. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Double or single
Quotations are enclosed within "double quotes". Quotations within quotations are enclosed within 'single quotes'.
The term quotation(s) in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as for song/chapter/episode titles, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, "scare-quoted" passages and constructed examples.