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 110 | ← | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | → | Archive 120 |
I'll pass.
| |
---|---|
|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Panini (sandwich). Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll pass.
| |
---|---|
|
Hatting this per request and per resolution via e-mail. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
Sometimes I really wish you'd just raise a question at talk about changes, especially on an article you've never edited, instead of posting a RM or some other drama that is supposed to be used for conflict resolution or when admin tools are needed. Not everything has to be turned into an enormous bandwidth-eating, time-consuming drama-o-rama. Just saying. Sometimes a reasonable compromise can be created in about two seconds. You could have said, "hey, would anyone mind if I used the foundation stock redirect and made it into an article to cover the other critters that aren't horses?" And I for one would have had no problem with it, and probably few other people would have even cared. Montanabw (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Why else do you think I've spent two years dissuading AT/MoS people from trying to decapitalize animal breed names? I remember the drama of WP:BIRDCON as if it happened yesterday. If you're not aware of it, I've headed off at least four RfCs that would have sought that result. The more I can get landrace and other not-really-breed articles decapitalized, with the capitalization limited to the published, formal names of standardized breeds, the more likely they are to remain capitalized and not attract the lower-case-everything-we-possibly-can crowd. The breed articles are tempting "plump and juicy" targets for that treatment, because the current (though progressively decreased, by me) habit of other "breed people" overcapitalizing every damned thing they can that has anything to do with livestock and animal husbandry (and horticulture, for that matter) looks like and is a very typical case of the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, while a defensible case for capping formal breed (and cultivar) names is actually fairly easy to muster and distinguish as legitimate. No rational case can be made that the Van cat is a proper noun, but the opposite appears to be the case for standardized Turkish Van. To that end, I've also gone to notable lengths to catalog the pro-caps arguments for standardized breeds, at WP:BREEDCASE. While I'm neutral on the underlying question, I lean in favor of retaining the caps for stability.PS: If your complaint above has been motivated by me minorly disagreeing with you on some article talk page the other day, please don't read into it. It's inevitable as active and independent editors that we'll run into each other here and there and not always agree. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC) @ Montanabw: Forgot to ping you. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC) AGFYour personalizing of remarks at the RM at Talk:Foundation bloodstock is out of line. Way out of line. And inaccurate. You really need to learn to collaborate with other people and this is not the way to do it. I don't give a flying damn about you personally; it's content that matters, sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree, and I could not care less about "getting even" with you. What I do object to is your creating silly, time-wasting dramafests with unnecessary RM requests when there wasn't even a disagreement. Just suggest a move at the article's talk page, the people who watchlist THAT PAGE discuss it, and the article could have been split a week ago. Just open up the foundation stock redirect, start working on it and move the content. If you do a RM on the article, I'm probably just going to recreate it with the horse-specific content anyway, so why go to all this waste? You do your thing, I'll do mine and with any luck, the encyclopedia as a whole is improved. (I really wish you'd work on your people skills, sometimes you can do good work if you'd just stop going ballistic at anyone who disagrees with you) Montanabw (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Moving forward practicallyLet's just drop the he-said-she-said, and look at this practically. The article at hand is only partly about horses (and will be decreasingly about horses as more content is added), so it should not have special horsey naming (actually, it's not even horse-related naming, it's specifically thoroughbred-related naming). If you think it's necessary for the thoroughbred term to have its own article, I doubt anyone cares much whether you content fork it for a while, though it doesn't meet the WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOUT, WP:DICDEF, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE criteria, so I expect it would be merged back in later. This is not just a horse-article problem; some other articles started as dog-related and are genericizing over time to include other species, but are misnamed and miscategorized. This is easily resolved by a) using the generic title, b) redirecting species-specific ones to the general article, and c) putting horse, dog, etc., categories on the species-specific (or even breed-specific) redirects. Standard operating procedure, regardless of topic area. It is not "drama".What probably needs to happen in the longer run is a glossary article, or more than one (there's no particular reason to commingle breeding terms and equestrian sporting terms, for example). We need articles on general notable concepts like foundation stock, not multiple articles at different titles on the same concept just because the terminology slightly differs from subtopic to subtopic. The only reason that would happen is if separate wikiprojects are trying to act in a WP:OWN manner. We just don't need or want that. Various key articles and some hierarchical glossaries – starting with breeding terms in one and animal sport terms in another, and spawning species-specific, more detailed glossaries for horses, dogs, whatever, on an as-needed basis – is probably enough to cover all the encyclopedic needs here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Precious again, your diligent research!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hatting this, since it's a long one-on-one chat, and of little interest to third parties. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
If you are opposed to my RMs, besides comma-based discussions and capitalization-based discussions, do you also mean Chinese names, relistings, and other types of discussions? If not, which types of RMs do you mean? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Ozone-oxygen cycle in the ozone layer.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Gustaf Skarsgård • À la carte Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Hello, do you still float around in the world of diacritics on Wikipedia? Rovingrobert ( talk) 01:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Has some new anti-diacritics campaigning arisen? If so, where? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
A small
whirlpool in a pond
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Ozone layer • Gustaf Skarsgård Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Chicago 16th has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Arnaldo - is the first name of this man, and - Dell'Ira - is his surname, oder the name of is family. In italian is written Dell'Ira as other surname, for example: Dell'Aquila, Dell'Acqua and many other (in english wikipedia: Alessandro Dell'Acqua (born 21 December 1962 in Naples) is a fashion designer; Angelo Dell'Acqua (9 December 1903 – 27 August 1972) was an Italian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church) . In italian wikipedia the name is exactly written: Arnaldo Dell'Ira. thanks
~~triktrak~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triktrak ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I've updated my comment at the RM to say the above. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Stub shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mike V • Talk 18:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi please can you reply to the last comment here. I still maintain that here is a Chinese 8ball world champs and it's getting more prestigious every year due to marketing and prize money. Lots of overseas pros are regulars on the Chinese tour now. Youtube it if you want! I also added the IPA world champs to that page. Sandman1142 ( talk) 08:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
What I would suggest is first writing a subsection on this variant of eight-ball, with a title of "Chinese eight-ball pool", under Eight-ball#Derivative games and variants. Change the hatnote atop Chinese eight-ball to point to that instead of the redlink. Also cross-reference it, under "See also", at Blackball (pool), to which Eight-ball pool (the folk name, vs. the world-standardised name) redirects. Then add a "Chinese eight-ball pool" section to the championship article. Adding one first is jumping the gun, since we have no article or even section about the game itself.
I've opened some more formal discussion about this at Talk:Eight-ball#Chinese eight-ball pool. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
A
photodetector salvaged from a
CD-ROM. The photodetector contains 3
photodiodes visible in the photo (in center).
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Whirlpool • Ozone layer Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Lloyd. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
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 110 | ← | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 | Archive 116 | → | Archive 120 |
I'll pass.
| |
---|---|
|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Panini (sandwich). Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll pass.
| |
---|---|
|
Hatting this per request and per resolution via e-mail. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
Sometimes I really wish you'd just raise a question at talk about changes, especially on an article you've never edited, instead of posting a RM or some other drama that is supposed to be used for conflict resolution or when admin tools are needed. Not everything has to be turned into an enormous bandwidth-eating, time-consuming drama-o-rama. Just saying. Sometimes a reasonable compromise can be created in about two seconds. You could have said, "hey, would anyone mind if I used the foundation stock redirect and made it into an article to cover the other critters that aren't horses?" And I for one would have had no problem with it, and probably few other people would have even cared. Montanabw (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Why else do you think I've spent two years dissuading AT/MoS people from trying to decapitalize animal breed names? I remember the drama of WP:BIRDCON as if it happened yesterday. If you're not aware of it, I've headed off at least four RfCs that would have sought that result. The more I can get landrace and other not-really-breed articles decapitalized, with the capitalization limited to the published, formal names of standardized breeds, the more likely they are to remain capitalized and not attract the lower-case-everything-we-possibly-can crowd. The breed articles are tempting "plump and juicy" targets for that treatment, because the current (though progressively decreased, by me) habit of other "breed people" overcapitalizing every damned thing they can that has anything to do with livestock and animal husbandry (and horticulture, for that matter) looks like and is a very typical case of the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, while a defensible case for capping formal breed (and cultivar) names is actually fairly easy to muster and distinguish as legitimate. No rational case can be made that the Van cat is a proper noun, but the opposite appears to be the case for standardized Turkish Van. To that end, I've also gone to notable lengths to catalog the pro-caps arguments for standardized breeds, at WP:BREEDCASE. While I'm neutral on the underlying question, I lean in favor of retaining the caps for stability.PS: If your complaint above has been motivated by me minorly disagreeing with you on some article talk page the other day, please don't read into it. It's inevitable as active and independent editors that we'll run into each other here and there and not always agree. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC) @ Montanabw: Forgot to ping you. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC) AGFYour personalizing of remarks at the RM at Talk:Foundation bloodstock is out of line. Way out of line. And inaccurate. You really need to learn to collaborate with other people and this is not the way to do it. I don't give a flying damn about you personally; it's content that matters, sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree, and I could not care less about "getting even" with you. What I do object to is your creating silly, time-wasting dramafests with unnecessary RM requests when there wasn't even a disagreement. Just suggest a move at the article's talk page, the people who watchlist THAT PAGE discuss it, and the article could have been split a week ago. Just open up the foundation stock redirect, start working on it and move the content. If you do a RM on the article, I'm probably just going to recreate it with the horse-specific content anyway, so why go to all this waste? You do your thing, I'll do mine and with any luck, the encyclopedia as a whole is improved. (I really wish you'd work on your people skills, sometimes you can do good work if you'd just stop going ballistic at anyone who disagrees with you) Montanabw (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Moving forward practicallyLet's just drop the he-said-she-said, and look at this practically. The article at hand is only partly about horses (and will be decreasingly about horses as more content is added), so it should not have special horsey naming (actually, it's not even horse-related naming, it's specifically thoroughbred-related naming). If you think it's necessary for the thoroughbred term to have its own article, I doubt anyone cares much whether you content fork it for a while, though it doesn't meet the WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOUT, WP:DICDEF, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE criteria, so I expect it would be merged back in later. This is not just a horse-article problem; some other articles started as dog-related and are genericizing over time to include other species, but are misnamed and miscategorized. This is easily resolved by a) using the generic title, b) redirecting species-specific ones to the general article, and c) putting horse, dog, etc., categories on the species-specific (or even breed-specific) redirects. Standard operating procedure, regardless of topic area. It is not "drama".What probably needs to happen in the longer run is a glossary article, or more than one (there's no particular reason to commingle breeding terms and equestrian sporting terms, for example). We need articles on general notable concepts like foundation stock, not multiple articles at different titles on the same concept just because the terminology slightly differs from subtopic to subtopic. The only reason that would happen is if separate wikiprojects are trying to act in a WP:OWN manner. We just don't need or want that. Various key articles and some hierarchical glossaries – starting with breeding terms in one and animal sport terms in another, and spawning species-specific, more detailed glossaries for horses, dogs, whatever, on an as-needed basis – is probably enough to cover all the encyclopedic needs here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Precious again, your diligent research!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hatting this, since it's a long one-on-one chat, and of little interest to third parties. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
If you are opposed to my RMs, besides comma-based discussions and capitalization-based discussions, do you also mean Chinese names, relistings, and other types of discussions? If not, which types of RMs do you mean? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Ozone-oxygen cycle in the ozone layer.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Gustaf Skarsgård • À la carte Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Hello, do you still float around in the world of diacritics on Wikipedia? Rovingrobert ( talk) 01:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Has some new anti-diacritics campaigning arisen? If so, where? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
A small
whirlpool in a pond
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Ozone layer • Gustaf Skarsgård Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Chicago 16th has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Arnaldo - is the first name of this man, and - Dell'Ira - is his surname, oder the name of is family. In italian is written Dell'Ira as other surname, for example: Dell'Aquila, Dell'Acqua and many other (in english wikipedia: Alessandro Dell'Acqua (born 21 December 1962 in Naples) is a fashion designer; Angelo Dell'Acqua (9 December 1903 – 27 August 1972) was an Italian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church) . In italian wikipedia the name is exactly written: Arnaldo Dell'Ira. thanks
~~triktrak~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triktrak ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I've updated my comment at the RM to say the above. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Stub shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mike V • Talk 18:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi please can you reply to the last comment here. I still maintain that here is a Chinese 8ball world champs and it's getting more prestigious every year due to marketing and prize money. Lots of overseas pros are regulars on the Chinese tour now. Youtube it if you want! I also added the IPA world champs to that page. Sandman1142 ( talk) 08:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
What I would suggest is first writing a subsection on this variant of eight-ball, with a title of "Chinese eight-ball pool", under Eight-ball#Derivative games and variants. Change the hatnote atop Chinese eight-ball to point to that instead of the redlink. Also cross-reference it, under "See also", at Blackball (pool), to which Eight-ball pool (the folk name, vs. the world-standardised name) redirects. Then add a "Chinese eight-ball pool" section to the championship article. Adding one first is jumping the gun, since we have no article or even section about the game itself.
I've opened some more formal discussion about this at Talk:Eight-ball#Chinese eight-ball pool. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
A
photodetector salvaged from a
CD-ROM. The photodetector contains 3
photodiodes visible in the photo (in center).
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Whirlpool • Ozone layer Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Lloyd. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)