User talk:Xanzzibar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Compuserve[edit]

Thanks for undoing my change on the CompuServe page. However, CIS is not an acronym. An acronym is a pronouncable WORD made up from the initials or parts of other words. So, unless you PRONOUNCE it as "kiss" or "siss", it's not an acronym. If you pronounce it "SEE-EYE-ESS", it's an abbreviation. MarkRae (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Deanne Bell[edit]

Hello Instead of saying the links need to be updated you could update them I tried to find some new links but there are no the complete article needs to be updated so the article is Currently unsourced due to to death links! --Fox2k11 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I DID update it. --Xanzzibar (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Eigengrau[edit]

Hi. I agree that it would be nice to have a source that says the term is deprecated, but the brutal fact is that it isn't deprecated, it is simply ignored. Nobody uses the word at all any more, even to say that nobody uses it. It doesn't seem right to deprive a reader of our article of such important information, so I view this as a prime example of WP:IAR. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I more or less agree, which is why I tagged it rather than delete it. OR/synth maybe isn't the perfect tag for it, but if something's inference rather than spelled out in a source (as Wiki prefers for all non-blue things), it should be marked. --Xanzzibar (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
You don't think an explanation on the talk page would suffice? I hate it that including essential information forces an article to have a hideous horrible tag at the top. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's important for the typical reader to know that there's no source specifically stating a claim. Having it only on the talk page would defeat the point of the tags. I was considering the inline template ([original research?]), but with half the lede dedicated to it, the section template seemed the better choice. If you've got a more aesthetic idea, have at it. I won't oppose you removing it entirely if you think that's best. --Xanzzibar (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I changed it to the inline template -- that way we can both be equally unhappy :-). Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

pull quote[edit]

Hey there. You made a comment that pull quotes are not supposed to go into "article space". I don't know what "article space" means. Template:Cquote says "Pull quotes work best when used with short sentences, and at the start or end of a section, as a hint of the section's content." which is exactly what I did. So would you care to clarify, for the sake of learning and whatnot? As a side note, every single other usage of cquote that I've ever seen on Wikipedia was inappropriate, where people just use it as a decorative form of the original direct quote instead of pulling from another one; so I tend to replace those with Template:quotation. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 16:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Article space" is the encyclopedic content - the articles. Pretty much anything that doesn't start with a prefix (Talk:, User:, etc.). Your use of it wasn't incorrect (in fact, I think this is the first time I ever saw cquote used correctly), and isn't technically against the MoS. However, general consensus has been to avoid pull quotes altogether in articles (which you can see in, among other places, template talk:Cquote). Subjective aesthetics aside, it touches on issues of undue weight, placing a particular opinion in a very prominent position. It's usually a way of sensationalizing or teasing - something to be avoided in an encyclopedia, which should have its content speak for itself.
If you'd like to put it back, though, I won't oppose you - you did use it correctly, and you can't really give undue weight to a universally-held opinion like "Big Rigs is awful".--Xanzzibar (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)