User talk:Xnux

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




Hello, Xnux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- ReyBrujo 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vogue (Ayumi Hamasaki song)[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines that deal with trademarks. In our case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) states that we should not follow the capitalization convention established by the trademark owners. In other words, even if Avex Trax wants the single to be called "vogue", we call it "Vogue" instead. Thanks for understanding. -- ReyBrujo 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User box creator with template[edit]

I noticed you made a userbox here are two useful userbox creators you might be interested in

Java7837 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you're into GML.Would you like to join a GameMaker community, 64digits?User:Serprex 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Heavy metal[edit]

Hi Xnux, I know your changes to this template were in good faith but there has been a lot of previous consternation about this. The result of a great deal of discussion was that minor genres, sub-genres and other links shoudl not be added to the template with proposal, discussion and acceptance. Thanks! Deiz talk 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

July 2007[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Imperial Teen. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Rambutan (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Just to let you know, there is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Motörhead.--Alf melmac 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the Asia band template[edit]

Just because you've got good music taste. I'm trying to get King Crimson to FA status currently.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Who[edit]

Hey, I noticed the userbox you made for The Who and was wondering... would you like to join this new Wikiproject? I'm very template challenged and it would really help if someone who wasn't could join. -MichiganCharms 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Strawbs = Strawbs[edit]

Greetings Xnux, I've just seen that you recently redirected The Small Faces to Small Faces, and as I'm pretty much "template challenged" as someone on this page has nicely put it, I'd be grateful if you could find the time to do the same with The Strawbs. Many thanx and regs., --Technopat 09:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for changing it - I'll experiment with your simple instructions one day - in the sandbox? Regs., --Technopat 11:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A favor[edit]

I don't know how, so I was wondering if you could create another the Who user box that says "This user Won't Get Fooled Again". I just love that song. Thanx! --HPJoker (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested photographs in Guam[edit]

I created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Guam to better aid those in Guam to locate articles needing photos of particular areas within Guam. GregManninLB (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Lol I remember when I asked you if you could make that. HPJoker Leave me a message 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Sad But True?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm..I believe it would be capitalized actually. "Holy Wars...The Punishment Due" and "Killing Is My Business...And Business Is Good" have "the" & "and" capitalized. They follow periods, as does this.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


No need for apologies Your concerns are well-taken and I have been involved in fixing many, many capitalizations and malformed names myself. It's an uphill battle. I still disagree with the rule as written, but you're probably right that they should be lower case. As for your use of examples, though, it contradicts the fact that you claim capitalization is a mess. If it's a mess, showing examples is not persuasive. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Right As you just wrote

Despite that bulky list, I could create an even longer list of articles that incorrectly capitalize "'bout", "over", "down", "off", "out", and "than".

which is exactly why I recommend you do not create such lists, because someone will create a list to contradict you. Just stick with the rule and you'll fare better. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure Moving them is fine with me. Again, I don't like it, but that's the rule. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The first word (even "a"/"an"/"the"/"and"/"or"/"but") of any title or subtitle ALWAYS gets capitalized, per WP:CAPS. As you have suggested, the only point of subtlety is when to consider a particular phrase to be a subtitle and when to consider it merely part of the title. I think you were absolutely correct in your assessment of the Megadeth titles Holy Wars... the Punishment Due, Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! and Peace Sells... but Who's Buying?. The first is clearly an example of the Title... Subtitle format, indicated by both the use of an article ("a"/"an"/"the") rather than a conjuction ("and"/"or"/"but") and the fact that the grammar doesn't make any sense when the elipses are replaced with a comma. The latter examples here, by contrast, display a grammar that does make sense. For these reasons, "The" gets capitalized while "and" and "but" do not. Similarly, the "a" in Never Walk Alone... a Call to Arms should be capitalized. Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Assesment Icons[edit]

Hello Xnux,

I've changed the icon colours, and these are the results:

The inner circle is the exact colour, but the outer ring might not be exactly as what you had in mind. If you would like me to change to colours of the outer right, I'll gladly do that.

Greetings, Sir Iain (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hots On for Nowhere[edit]

Really? Is this phrase even grammatical to you? It doesn't make any sense to me, so I can't figure what is what... —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your answer - it addresses some of what my clumsy question was trying to ask. I didn't want to know just about the grammar, but the semantics - what does "hots on for nowhere" mean? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bring It On Home[edit]

Thanks for the grammar correction. It ain't like me to mess up grammar! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(ChirpsClamsChowder) 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please stop moving back the "Someone to Watch over Me" articles[edit]

I did check before I moved them, and the current article names with the capital 'O' do appear to be correct - follow up the external links in the articles to see how the names are spelt elsewhere, and read the various article talk pages (although I realise you've been involved in some of the discussions). I understand and sympathise with your arguments from an WP:NC perspective, but current widely supported practice would seem to be against you. If you want final clarification on this, perhaps it would be worth opening a discussion on WT:NC to get a broad consensus, and have it written into WP:NC? Only on Wikipedia could something so trivial cause so much disruption ;) EyeSerenetalk 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that you decided to move these, against consensus and without discussion (a note on my talk page after the fact is hardly adequate). You've been here a while, so you have to be aware that your move-warring is likely to feed this dispute, entrench positions, and blow this trivial issue out of all proportion.
I have no opinion on the article title - I'm only involved in as much as I responded to the original ANI thread. You may be correct that the author's intent was not to capitalise over. However, if you check through the article history, use of 'Over' was from the original author and stood for a long time until a few days ago, when all this started. You are the one claiming, against consensus, that the word is not intentionally capitalised, so you need to provide sources that prove it. It would have been far better if you'd let the titles stand and made an effort to do that on the article talk page(s) - even if it eventually turns out you are correct, you are doing yourself no favours by disrupting Wikipedia and short-circuiting the dispute resolution processes. EyeSerenetalk 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your undertaking to discuss this in future - it displays good faith and does you credit. I'll move them back tomorrow; as I said, the burden is on you to provide sources that support your renaming proposal, since it's going against established usage and consensus. If you do, I'll be more than happy to move them again if required (but not too soon - it's getting to be a real pain in the proverbial doing it every day!) EyeSerenetalk 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phrasal verbs[edit]

By definition, a phrasal verb is a verb plus a preposition or adverb which creates a meaning different from the original verb. In essence, they become a verb in unto themselves, describing the subject's action as is "One" (subject) flew over (verb) and "Someone" to watch over (verb). As two-word verbs, both should be capitalized. Yes, they are still prepositions, but in this context they are connected to the verb, creating the new meaning. If the following were titles, I would capitalize them as such:

"I Ran Over a Dog"
"I Ran over a Mile"

--Wolfer68 (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is though, the preposition "over" at least three different meanings: the One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest articles use "over" in the sense of 'above', the Someone to Watch over Me articles use "over" in the sense of 'in such a way as to cover', and "I Ran over a Mile" uses "over" in the sense of 'past, exceeding, or beyond'. They are different prepositions with the same name. I would consider a two-part phrasal verb to be "I had to completely do over that assignment". Xnux the Echidna 01:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
With some thought, I can somewhat agree with you on "flew over" because you can "fly over" something as well as "fly to" something - "flying" means the same thing in both cases; although in the case of the novel, the title itself bring an entirely new meaning to the phrase. I'd still share the consensus that "over" should be capitalized in this case, and not make a fuss over it (damn, there's that word again). But "watch over" brings an entirely new meaning to the verb "watch", because it can means "take care of" or "looking out for" (another phrasal verb), and one does not have to be literally watching anything. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: System of a Down discography (cleanup)[edit]

I only have a doubt, there is already a user who did most of the changes in this discography, then, whom will nominate this for a possible FLC? Regards, Cannibaloki 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject[edit]

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some questions about this project:

  • Is WikiProject Metal completely separate from this project, or is this considered a "parent" project? I noticed a lack a featured metal articles on the WikiProject Rock page (although there are some featured metal discographies).
The Metal wikiproject was the first of the three mayor music project and was established in February, 2006. The Rock music is the youngest of all the projects, but has most members.
Answear: Well not all heavy metal genres are subgenres to rock music and since the project has been unactive since 2007 not many articles has been turned to GA, FL or FA. Don't worry the project is active now and we have got over 15 new members this week.
The rock wikiproject has more Featured list and articles then the metal project. Metal project has 42 while the rock project has 66 and the alternative wiki project has 100. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll add the list of U2 awards later. Well the list of Nine Inch Nails related articles are in the scope of the alternative rock project, if you want to change this start a discussion on their talk page. Thats what i did with the Queens of the Stone Age related articles. And not all those list was ment for the rock music project, someone worked their ass of those articles for the alternative project.
Drewcifer3000 got the list to FL so ask him.
If you know anymore list like List of U2 awards which isn't in scope of the alternative project just contact me.

If you have anymore questions just ask me. Oh and i see you plan to get the System Of a Down discography which i worked on to FL. If you need any help with it just contact me. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Can you please notify the leading editors and the projects on the talk page about the FAR. Then put who you have notified on the top of the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rush portal[edit]

I believe there has been an established consensus to keep the portal named identically to the main Rush (band) article. -- WikHead (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it needs a disambiguator, but I'm sure if you roll back through the history a bit, you will find where it had been agreed that the Rush portal would maintain the same name-style as the main Rush article. There were several categories and Rush related articles all renamed at the same time to match. -- WikHead (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Really, the naming convention used, personally makes no difference to me one way or the other. I have however, observed a few AFD's, CFD's etc. over the past few months, and witnessed the consensus where Rush portal was recently renamed to "Rush (band)" portal. I'm not riding your jock about it, nor do I intend to change anything you've done... but I have a feeling that someone else probably will. I thought you may appreciate a heads-up. -- WikHead (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Rush (band)[edit]

Do you think that Category:Rush (band) should just be deleted entirely? There're only the subcategories, main page, and discography, for the most part. Not enough for a whole category on the band IMO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 12:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on the Josh Homme discography[edit]

The reason those bands are listed as those aren't just band's he's collaborated with, but those he was a full time member of at the time of recording. Red157(talkcontribs) 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

System of a Down discography[edit]

Yo. I've had a look at your comments and the article itself; you're right, it's not far off, but I doubt it would fly through a FL nomination. Here are my thoughts:

  • It's never easy, and there are a lot of methods and preferences being banded around at the moment. Some people simply don't like to have "This is a complete discography of System of a Down...", whereas some prefer it. I'm going to steer clear of that introductory sentence, as I'm not one of the decision-makers on matters like that!
  • I think the best leads are ones that function to summarise the history of the band and where important recordings play a role in that history. Look, for instance, at Tool's and QOTSA's. Try to throw in the formation, demos, studio albums and successful singles. Don't fuss over minor hits and minor releases. Finally, if there are any upcoming releases, maybe throw those in at the end.
Release dates
  • I don't think these pieces of information are always obtainable. Personally I'm pretty lax and would say it's not a deal-breaker.
Four separate citations
  • If it's all included in ref #1 I'd only use one. But that's because of aesthetics, and if that's the only way all the information can be expressed, leave it in.
Music video directors
  • Googling can work sometimes... but again, there aren't always places to find this information. Leave the citations in and see what the harsher FLCers think.
  • I think one "Unknown" is probably OK. Again, sometimes the internet just doesn't provide what you need.
"Vicinity of Obscenity"
  • If in doubt, leave it out. If discogs and musicbrainz don't list it it probably doesn't exist anywhere, ever.
Other comments
  • How about an "Album" column in the Music videos table?
  • What's with the column width in the Other appearances table?
  • In your citations, "All Music Guide" should be "allmusic"; it's been rebranded.
  • Why are you missing a load of citations in the Singles table?

I hope some of this helps, although most of it is categorically unhelpful. Seegoon (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jimi Hendrix albums[edit]

Thanks for the message, I will deal with the albums you have brought up one by one. In most cases there should be a legit reason it is not featured as I am essentially obsessed with Jimi's history! Anyway...

So basically I don't think any of these should be included, though that is open to debate I guess. I clean up the article whenever I have time and will continue to do so and will one day nominate it for featured list status. Cheers again. Andre666 (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should definitely be listed for deletion. Obviously Burning Desire can stay but delete the rest, Live At The Isle Of Fehmarn can just be a redirect, which I will do. Go for it, nominate them! Andre666 (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Subordinating conjunction[edit]

Ok, I now see that you're right. Sorry for being slow. For consistency, I'm also going to move Catch Me if You Can, Catch Me if You Can (musical), Catch Me if You Can (song), and Catch Me if You Can (M. Pokora song). Thanks for setting me straight on that. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Love, Pain, and the Whole Crazy Capitalization[edit]

Thanks for correcting me again. I should've known to move it back, since his debut album was spelled in lowercase, yet it's in capitals here. (Isn't it ironic that a singer who once spelled his name in lowercase is on Capitol Records?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dangerously in Love[edit]

I've noticed you've moved the album Dangerously in Love to Dangerously In Love several times on the basis that it uses a two-part phrasal verb. Not to insult your intelligence, but it doesn't; there isn't even a verb in Dangerously in Love. "Dangerously" is an adverb, but "in" is a preposition and "Love" is a noun. So, it uses a prepositional phrase rather than a two-part phrasal verb. I've moved the article back since then. Hope this clarifies things, Xnux the Echidna 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying. But I disagree with your assessment. On second thought, "in love" may not be a "phrasal verb" as I had previously stated. But what it is, however, is an idiomatic phrase meaning "deeply passionate (about)", the entire meaning of which would be lost if "in" was separated from "Love". The use of "in" in that sense does not constitute a preposition; it does not indicate a spatial nor directional relationship between the adverb "Dangerously" and the word "love". "In love" signifies a closer connection, almost as if they were one word, one expression.
Secondly, adverbs don't usually precede nouns; adverbs modify other adverbs (in some cases), adjectives and verbs. Orane (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
But I'll wait for your reply before changing anything. Orane (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
There can't be a relation to "love" in a case like this, though, and certainly not in relation to an adverb. An adverb cannot modify a noun, plain and simple, and certainly not a preposition. The adverb "dangerously" modifies the adjective "in love", since the adverb is describing the extent of being in love. In this case, "in love" acts as one phrase; it is a state of being, a state of feeling, and it is a single idiomatic phrase, not a preposition and a noun. If I substitute another adverb for "Dangerously", then your point would lose ground. What about the expression "So In Love"? What would be "in relation" to "love"? Orane (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is in relation to "Love"... but there doesn't need to be any relation. Take In and out of Love for example. "Out of" isn't capitalized even though there's nothing in relation to it, but since it's a preposition, we don't capitalize it. You're right: "in love" is an adjective, but the words that make up "in love" are a preposition and a noun. On In and out of Love, "out of" is one preposition, so since it is five letters or above it technically should be capitalized as per WP:CAPS or WP:MUSTARD. However, "out of" consists of two prepositions, so we treat each separately and don't capitalize either word. This is the precedent I'm arguing for here; I don't necessarily agree with it, but Wikipedia has been using it for a long while. You might want to bring it up at WP:NC if you really feel strongly against it. Anyways, as per this quirky little Wikipedia naming convention, the "in" in Dangerously in Love wouldn't be capitalized since, even though it's part of an adjective, it is still treated as separate from "Love." Xnux the Echidna 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you're smart. It's great that you're a grammar freak like me. Regarding the "in and out" thing. I really don't have an answer for that. This whole thing has confused me somewhat, but I still feel that the DIL is an adjective, and adjectives need to be capitalized, regardless of whether it's a pronoun on it's own. But it's fine. I don't think I'll change it. Not many people would agree with it. And no thanks to bringing it up on WikiProject Music. They don't like me very much, and vice versa ahhaha. Orane (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I hope it's ok if I jump in...

I'm pretty sure that "out of love" is a back-formation based on the idiomatic "in love". It seems that "in love" is rather different from "in Tennessee", but does that mean it's not a prepositional phrase? At any rate, I would suggest that Talk:Dangerously in Love would be a good place to discuss this, if only to prevent this same discussion from iterating many times in relation to the same article. A note at WP:MOSCAPS might also be helpful, to get opinions from more grammar-freaks. It would be nice to answer the question with a minimum of further page-moves (i.e., 0 or 1). -GTBacchus(talk) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GTBacchus, that's a very good observation. "In love" is different from "in Tennessee", and it makes all the difference. It's just like "Come On Over" and "Knock on Wood". In the first phrase, "Come On" is a part of one expression and becomes a verb, in which case "on" would be upper case. In the second example, "on" is a preposition, describing where one knocks. I don't have an issue with it anymore though. But I ask Xnux's permission to paste his comments, along with mine, on the article's talk page for future reference. Orane (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say it pretty much sums up the entire issue. And I asked your permission because of ethical reasons. An editor, who was a scientist in real life, and I had a dispute once, and he was angry that I had copied his comments without his permission, as if he had put them there; he felt that I should have linked back to the original conversation (and to be honest, most people always link the conversation, rather than copy it). So from then on, I've been careful. Orane (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh... I think I'm puzzled, or at least willing to play dumb in order to learn. Observe: "He may think he's in love, but in fact, he's in trouble... in Tennessee." Where is the line between prepositional phrase and idiomatic adjective that looks like a prepositional phrase? How can a naive user of the language such as myself tell the difference? What does a widely accepted style guide or other grammatical source say about this? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look up formal definitions and grammar rules, which I'll definitely do tomorrow. But before I go to bed, let me just tell you my simple method: if the word that would normally be a preposition (in, to, on) can be combined to the other word to form a single idea with a single meaning (for instance, a synonym), then chances are, it is not a prepositional phrase. "In love" means "enamored" or "deeply infatuated with"; "in fact" means "actually", "also", or "in reality"; "in trouble" means "facing difficulties/hardships". However, there is no single meaning for the expression "in Tennessee". The two words cannot be understood together as one phrase: "in" has it's own separate meaning, while "Tennessee" has it's own separate definition as well. Orane (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you may be distinguishing the literal, physical, meaning of the preposition "in" from any metaphorical meaning, where something is "in" some state of being, as opposed to being physically contained within a certain place or container. What if I say I'm "in a state of confusion?" That's the same as "confused", but does it make it not a prepositional phrase, according to what you're saying? Less abstractly, "in jail" can be replaced with the word "incarcerated", but surely "in jail" is a prepositional phrase, no? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, you asked me for idiomatic phrases, as opposed to strickly phrases that begin with a preposition. "In jail" isn't idiomatic, so it would automatically be taken for "in" and "jail"— two separate words, but yes, a prepositional phrase. Likewise with "in a state of confusion". It's not an idiom; unless there was a phrase that went "in confused". Again, it has to with words that pair off. It's confusing, I know. But (and I hope that I don't confuse you more), it's kinda like a phrasal verb. Words like "Carry On", "Stand Up", "Come On" form one idiomatic phrase, and because "up" and "on" are not prepositions, they wouldn't normally be lower case when used in titles. I'm at school now, but I'll explain more when I get home. Orane (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, idiomatic language is figurative and metaphorical. So, in your previous message, I guess you spotted the difference yourself, without knowing it. Orane (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, figurative and metaphorical. So much more language is figurative and metaphorical than we tend to realize. "In a state of confusion" is figurative and metaphorical. I'm rather less confused than you seem to think I am. I guess I'm pointing out, with questions, that the grey area is well-populated, and that clear distinctions are therefore necessarily arbitrary, at some point.

The phrase "in a state of confusion" uses the metaphor STATE OF BEING = CONTAINER. A state of being is not actually a container, that we can be within the physical limits of, in the way that we can be in a room, or in a box. It's a deep metaphor that we don't tend to think of as a metaphor, but it is one nevertheless. If I say I'm "in a state of some kind", and if I say I'm "in love", I'm appealing to the same nature of metaphor, the STATE OF BEING = CONTAINER one. Why are we "in" a state, as opposed to being "with" one, or "on" one, or "under" one?

This is not an original idea of mine, about metaphor; George Lakoff has been saying this for decades.

In case it wasn't clear, I don't believe that there exists a clear, well-defined, and universally applicable distinction between idiomatic language and non-idiomatic language. The grey area is well-populated; therefore the distinction is not clear and well-defined. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly analysis of idiom as much more complicated than phrases whose meaning is undistributed to the individual words. You might enjoy it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, first off you sound angry, so if offended you without knowing, I apologize. Secondly, I've never said that all figurative language are idioms. The state of confusion thing you're talking about may be figurative, but it's not an idiom. Orane (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I'm sorry to sound angry. Is it the all-caps I used to express the metaphor? I borrowed that style directly from Lakoff, and I acknowledge that it's odd. I'm certainly not angry with you. I did have a bit of a rotten day, and if I threw some of that your way, then I apologize. Maybe it was my saying that I'm less confused than you seem to think I am. I think that's true, but I'm not upset about it.

I am interested in this question, and I am fairly convinced that these terms cannot be well-defined to an arbitrary level of precision. If I am wrong, I'm open to hearing that.

I'm not aware that I suggested that you said or implied that all figurative language are idioms. I don't believe that you said that. I do believe that the area of language we're talking about is extremely sticky, and difficult to sort out precisely. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

True. And thanks. By the way, you can just go to to check if the expression is idiomatic or not. Search for "in fact" or other phrases, and you'll know for sure. Now, we better stop this (or continue it elsewhere, at least) before the owner of the talk page chases us away :P Orane (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... are we anywhere near any sort of conclusion? Should idioms be disntinguished from prepositional phrases in capitalization? Xnux the Echidna 13:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion I've reached is that, barring some authoritative source, (and be damned - I'll know "for sure" indeed...), there is no acid-test criterion for distinguishing idioms from non-idiomatic speech in every case. A phrasal verb, I can identify in the wild, but with idioms, there's a well-populated grey area. Therefore, it being impossible to make a well-defined rule, we should treat idioms couched as prepositional phrases int the same way we treat any prepositional phrase, and we should not capitalize the "in" of Dangerously in Love.

In order to be convinced otherwise, I would have to see (A) some kind of authoritative rule saying that idioms are given special treatment with respect to capitalization, and (B) a rule for determining when a phrase is an idiom. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My conclusion is that we have arrived at a point that was not a part of the initial discussion, and I take personal fault for this. And I say this because, somehow, we/I began to focus more on idioms rather than the particular part of speech of the words in the idiomatic phrase. My main reason for arguing for the capitalization of "in love" was never only because it was an idiom, but rather because it's use in the phrase was largely adjectival. We do not blindly capitalize every word in idioms. A song titled "Hell to Pay" would be capitalized as such, despite being an idiomatic phrase. I was arguing in favour of capitalizing two-worded adverbial/adjectivial phrases (in fact, in love) that would normally be seen as one entity. Despite being shorter than a sentence, a phrase still has to make sense gramatically, and I reiterate, an adverb (Dangerously) simply cannot modify a preposition (in) or a noun (love). Orane (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hm... well, perhaps this is a case where a preposition can be capitalized in title case. Should I present this idea to WP:NC and see if it flies there? There's no guarantee it will convince them, but I'll finally be able to stop worrying about grammar for a while :/ Xnux the Echidna 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Every prepositional phrase functions as a adjective or an adverb; that's precisely what prepositional phrases do.

In the sentence, "I am in love," the prepositional phrase "in love" modifies the only word there is to modify, "I". It functions as an adjective, identifying a property possessed by the pronoun, "I". It's structurally identical to "I am hungry," or, "I am in Tennessee." In all three cases, the adjective - or phrase functioning as an adjective - modifies the pronoun "I".

In the title Dangerously in Love, the adverb, "dangerously," modifies the prepositional phrase, "in love". It answers the question, "how?" or, "to what extent?" are you in love? Nobody has suggested that an adverb would modify the preposition ("in") or the noun ("love") separately. They function as a unit - a prepositional phrase - that can play the role of an adjective or an adverb, and hence may be modified by an adverb.

If one were wanted in Tennessee, and likely to run into trouble, then one could be "Dangerously in Tennesseee," and that would be a perfectly correct example of an adverb modifying an honest-to-God prepositional phrase. It's structurally identical to "dangerously hungry," except the role of the adjective is filled - correctly - by a prepositional phrase.

The idea of capitalizing "in" makes no sense to me on any grammatical or stylistic level. I have yet to see any kind of citation of any authority that would sanction such a choice. I'm open to seeing one. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet the saga continues! Sorry Xnux. GTBacchus, I disagree with your use and assessment of prepositional phrases. They may function as adjective and adverbs, but not in the manner you explained. A prepositional phrases answers questions such as where, who, when, which etc and this is what gives it it's adverbial quality. According to this source, "To find out if a prepositional phrase is functioning as an adverbial phrase, see if it answers one of these questions: “Where?” “When?” “In what manner?” “To what extent?”" and "To find out if a prepositional phrase is functioning as an adjectival phrase, see if it answers these questions: “Which one?” or “What kind?”". In the sentence "She sat by the ocean", "by the ocean" would be the prepositional phrase describing where she sat i.e, it modifies the verb "sit". Similarly, "The girl combed the beach for money", "for money" is the prepositional phrase, answering "why" the girl combed the beach. In both these sentences, "where" and "why" are adverbs. source 1, source 2.

"In love" answers none of these question. "In love" isn't doing the answering/modifying, as would normally be the case in prepositional phrases. It is the object that is being modified by the adverb "Dangerously". Also, to say "Dangerously in Tennessee" is fragmented and grammatically incorrect. Dangerously what in Tennessee? Dangerously fighting? Dangerously walking? Something is definitely missing. You could say "Dangerously in love in Tennessee," where the prepositional phrase "in Tennessee" modifies "in love" by telling where you are when you're in love.

Lastly, I point to you that despite prepositional phrases being adverbial or adjectival, they are still that: prepositions. But according to, and to a lesser extent,, if you want to trust it, "in love" is strictly an adjective. Adjectives are capitalized in titles. Orane (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So... you say you disagree with me, and then you repeat back to me what I said. Prepositional phrases function as adjectives or adverbs, and thus may be modified by adverbs. The adverb "Dangerously" answers the question "to what extent?", modifying the adjectival phrase "in love". To what extent are you hungry - "I'm dangerously hungry". To what extent are you in love - "I'm dangerously in love."

I have a question. In the clause, "I am in Tennessee," what question does the phrase "in Tennessee" answer? Is it functioning as an adjective, or as an adverb?

Again you say that "in love" is an adjective. I say it's an adjectival phrase, which is not a disagreement. I say that it plays the same role as "in Tennessee," which is an adjectival prepositional phrase. They function as predicate adjectives following the linking verb "am". "I am hungry," "I am in love," "I am in Tennessee," "I am frustrated with this round-and-round conversation." If "in Tennessee" is not an adjectival prepositional phrase in the sentence "I am in Tennessee," modifying "I," then what is it? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you said you needed proof, and when I gave you the proof (the explanation, plus the dictionary links stating the part of speech), you still aren't satisfied. Prepositional phrases are not located in dictionaries. The entry "in love" is found in a dictionary, under "adjective", not a "prepositional phrase with adjectival value". Big difference. And even if I were to agree that it is a a phrase (since it's two words), it's still adjectival (an adjective), which means it should be capitalized, just as how phrasal verbs, which contain prepositions, are capitalized. Orane (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please post new comments at Talk:Dangerously in Love

Thanks for the earlier correction[edit]

Hi Xnux. Thanks for catching the invalid page move for Black Sabbath Vol. 4. While it's fresh in your mind could I just point out that the actual album title, according to the label catalogue and also as it is listed in most online music vendors is, in fact... Black Sabbath, Vol. 4. Notice the comma is missing from the Wiki article title. The page should really be moved to that title but their is already a redirect page set up using the comma to point towards the 'comma-less' article. Which is backward to how it should be. Any chance you can correct that minor punctuation blunder in the article title? Thanks! The Real Libs-speak politely 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually... hold the phone. When I do a title search into our database (I am a librarian) The database lists the album with the comma. But when I do a reverse search using the catalog # I get a scanned label page and it shows the album title separator as a dash? Black Sabbath-Vol. 4 clearly different... and most certainly different from my earlier title search showing the label listing as a comma. Most online retailers like Amazon use the comma and I could not randomly pull any online vendor using a dash. But could find an equal number using nothing other than empty space(like the source of the whistling between my ears) I did notice... oddly... that the sales status listing for the album in the RIAA database uses a dash. That is the only other place I have seen it. Being cautious I am now leaning towards leaving it as is... as you were confident in doing. We can certainly confirm that the album is not just "Vol.4" as the earlier editor ASSumed it was. Sorry for troubling you with my fickle query. I appreciate the quick reply from you. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 03:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Rock music Newsletter for October 2008[edit]

Mono live 20050502.jpg
The Rock music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 9 - October 2008
"As long as my face is on page one, I don't care what they say about me on page seventeen."- Mick Jagger
Project news
  • The project has a total of 106 GAs and 91 Featured Articles and Lists put together.
  • We collaborated on Soul Bomb.
  • Help us select good versions of WP:ROCK articles for inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 release! Find out more about Wikipedia 0.7 selection on the project talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion. If you are personally responsible for a Featured or Good Article listed here, please the select a version to include in Wikipedia 0.7 on that page if you haven't already. Page versions must be selected by October 20.
  • The genres in infobox fields have been removed cause of the discussion found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. You can provide any opinions you may have about this.
  • This month's "Recommended Rock Album" is Soundgarden - Superunknown (1994).



User:Be Black Hole Sun

Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs)


Hey bro, take it easy with all the articles entitled Get Over It. "Get over" is a "two-word phrasal verb", to quote WP:MUSTARD, which is why it just looks plain wrong to decapitalise "over". Consider external reliable external source as an additional arbiter. I can't complain about the generally great job you are doing for the standards of the project though. Cheers! BigBlueFish (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you somehow managed to break the disambiguation page Get Over It when trying to correct the capitalisation. MoS:DAB stipulates that title formatting (italics for albums, quotes for songs) be piped into the the title and the brackets left unformatted. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article It's like That (Run-D.M.C. song) incomplete[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page It's like That (Run-D.M.C. song) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Rock is Dead (tour)[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rock is Dead (tour), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Rock is Dead (tour) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rock is Dead (tour), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of title for Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003)[edit]

Given your previous involvement on the talk page for this article, I'd like to invite you to participate in the discussion concerning the capitalization of the page title, although you seem to have already made your opinion clear. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal[edit]

Hello Xnux, you have received this notice because you have placed your name on the list of members of WikiProject Metal. We are currently looking to make the wikiproject more active, and in doing so, we need to have a list of active members on the wikiproject. If you wish to stay an active part of wikiproject metal, please add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Active Users. Conversely, if you wish to leave the wikiproject, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Members. Thank you. Dio throwing Horns.jpg

Nomination for deletion of Template:NA-classicon[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:NA-classicon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Caps in a title[edit]

Per your comment here. I was going to post there too, but seeing as you did not get a response, I did no think I would either. You may want to take a look at a similar situation? Cheers, Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

File:US LGBT housing discrimination.svg[edit]

Hi. Delaware should be light blue. See [1], [2] and [3] Ron 1987 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Map of U.S. Reps supporting same-sex marriage[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you created a map highlighting the districts of SSM supporters. I've just added Suzanne Bonamici, Adam Schiff and Brad Sherman to the list of SSM-supporting congressmen. Are you able to update the map accordingly? Many thanks. --Lincolnite (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States'[edit]

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?


  • You added this on 2 March.
  • I tried to load this link on 30 March, 1 April, 3 April and today, but it never worked.
  • I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Democrats: Say I Do, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Quigley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas![edit]

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City
Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m.National Archives in Kansas City
  • This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.

    Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!


And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:

Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park
  • Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge!
St. Louis
Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center
  • Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!
Wiknic logo.svg

Message delivered by Dominic·t 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wisconsin adoption policies[edit]

Wisconsin allows Lgbt couples to adopt, pleae change this to purple when you get a chance. Lgbt individuals may adopt, then state funded adoption agencies will work to ensure that the other spouse attains full guardianship or comparable parental rights. Also, Wisconsin has a domestic partnership registry for same sex couples which provides insurance related protections to either spouses dependents. See LGBT rights in Wisconsin for more detailed information regarding the domestic partnership registry in Wisconsin as well as parental and adoption rights. Citations are listed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Better know a district map[edit]

Hey, I saw you made File:BetterKnowADistrict.svg -- but DC should be brown, the rep there is a non-voting delegate. Thanks. --AW (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have described the "Better Know a Protectorate" series as encompassing the districts of non-voting delegates. Brown simply indicates that that particular congressional district was featured on the show's "Better Know a Protectorate" series, which only encompasses U.S. unincorporated territories. The District of Columbia is not an unincorporated territory, nor was it featured as a part of "Better Know a Protectorate" (indeed, the show counts D.C.'s district as one of the nation's 435 congressional districts after California's 50th was removed from the total count). Thus, D.C.'s district is colored yellow. Xnux 22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Come to the First Topeka Meetup, January 15![edit]

Wikipedia Day 2013 Topeka.png

Come celebrate Wikipedia Day with other Kansas Wikipedians sponsored by Wikimedians Active in Local Regions in the United States (WALRUS) and hosted by the Topeka and Shawnee Public Library. Come chat, hang out and enjoy good company while find out more about Wikipedia in our regional community! RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Wikipedia_Day.

If you can't come, but still want to find out about events in the greater Topeka region (which may include KC, Manhattan, Lawrence, Salina, or other places where volunteers are interested) sign up for future notifications at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Invite list.

Hope to see you there Sadads (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:US Representatives supporting SSM.svg[edit]

Please update the map to reflect support from Richard L. Hanna source. I already added him to the article. Thanks, CTF83! 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I read that article, but I couldn't find Hanna saying anything that showed his support of same-sex marriage in general—only that he supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (which isn't equivalent to supporting SSM; otherwise, we'd just add everyone who cosponsors the Respect for Marriage Act). Xnux 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, good point. CTF83! 04:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LGBT employment discrimination in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Peters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


Hey, can you update the Senator map, Mark Warner of Virginia came out in support [4]. thnx NYSMy talk page 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Could you update this map? The new law added gender identity to hate crimes law. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal Aspects of Transgenderism Map - Birth Certificates and SRS[edit]

Hi XNUX, can you tell me the source for the map? Some of the data does not match with several state statutes. The statutes in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey and Michigan, in particular, all require surgery or operation. See Most sources tracking practice in the states show only five states that do not require SRS but allow for other treatment (California, Iowa, Oregon, Washington and Vermont). Though several other states (like Minnesota, Mississippi New Hampshire, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have statuts that do not require surgery, trans sites indicate that SRS letters are standard practice for getting sex changed. Is the Greenberg article/book the source?

I haven't heard of Greenberg's article or book before, but if you have another source, feel free correct the mistakes in the maps in the article. The SRS map is based off of the Lambda Legal source and Dr. Becky Allison's Instructions for Changing Name and Sex on Birth Certificate, which appears to have some more up-to-date information on some states (e.g., Kansas and Oklahoma, which apparently have effective bans on changing the sex on birth certificates). The birth certificates map is based on this map with additional information gleaned from Dr. Becky's page. I am not a lawyer, however, so I probably misinterpreted some of the statutes listed on the Lambda Legal page, and I probably didn't fully research states like Mississippi which appear to have lenient laws but may not in practice. I would love to have a source with less legalese to look at, so if you have one, please contribute it. Xnux 23:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the answer. First, let me say that for a non-lawyer, you are MORE correct than legal sources. You and Dr. Becky -- whose resources I also used to check things -- confirms that we are living in an era where the true experts are in fact varied individuals, yes, "on the internet".

I am a legal scholar in Sweden (with a U.S. law degree), so I did a lot of checking, and as I suggest above, also used Dr. Becky's site before. I am working on a book for an international publication, so I was going to use the map as a guide of how to make one, which is how I stumbled across it. I have checked and double checked, though in truth for some states, I think I will need to write to the agencies.

I don't know how to correct maps, though, so any pointers would be great. I'd also love to know how you made the map, as I will need to do so for a conference soon.

Here are the ones that I have confirmed with the state agencies and administrative codes are incorrect and need to be changed to green: (1) Colorado, (2) Delaware, (3) Massachusetts, (4) Michigan, and (5) New Jersey. For New Hampshire and Utah, both require "sex change" but do not specify what kind of sex change. It is probably okay to leave Indiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, and South Dakota in the lavender, though their statutes aren't clear.

I am going to contact Lambda and NCTE to ask about this, but they are clearly understaffed and probably can't keep up with the changes either -- which just proves that your work is worthwhile.

Let me know if there's an easy guide to changing the map and I can fix it. Thanks!

I didn't "create" the map, I just edited a commonly used template from the Wikimedia Commons (called File:Blank US Map.svg). The map is an SVG file, so if you want to edit it easily, save it and open it up in a text editor. You'll notice several <path> tags—each of them represent a shape on the map (most of them represent one state, with the exception of Michigan, which has a lower and upper peninsula). To find the state you want, just search for its two-letter abbreviation (e.g., "NJ" for New Jersey, "MI" for Michigan, etc.) and it will give you the <path> tag(s) you need to edit.
Coloring a state is a matter of adding a 'style="fill:#000000"' attribute to the tag (fill:#000000 would make it colored black, for example; you can choose whatever color you want by using a site such as You can look at the source of this map to see an example of how this is done. All you'll need is the fill:#<color> part; don't worry about fill-opacity, stroke, etc. unless you want to make it look extra-stylish. Xnux 14:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. That makes sense even with my limited experience. I'll give it a try when I get a break in a few weeks, depending on what text editor I can find or use most easily (or see if I have one, as this is all new to me, not something I do). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGS6227 (talkcontribs) 07:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Legal aspects of transsexualism[edit]

In the map of the article, Legal aspects of transsexualism, can you also mark the five countries where SRS is not required for changing legal gender in the passport? See second last paragraph in (Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Sweden and Australia)