User talk:Noetica

Νοητικά means "things of the intellect", just as φυσικά means "things of nature (physics)". Using the approximate categories applicable to your species, I am male, and Australian. Stationed on the planet's surface awaiting orders for my next mission, I specialise in the details of Wikipedia style – at WP:MOS (punctuation and style recommendations for our 6,828,462 articles). I am also concerned with titling policy – rational arrangements for naming those articles (see WP:RM, WP:TITLE, WP:DAB).

If you post here, I will answer here. Tea?

---

---

Messages:

---

Web searches—coming changes

This article discusses Web searches and imminent changes. There is an embedded YouTube video with a duration of 12:47.

• How to Prepare for Google’s Search Makeover

—Wavelength (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Online resources about writing and speaking

Editors can use this link to find online resources about writing and speaking.

• Writing and Speaking | FindHow.com.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Alliance"

Noetica, please stick to commenting on article moves, rather than other editors. If you can't do that, then please don't drag in editors who have nothing to do with the case at hand. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek. There were two editors only named in the recent ArbCom case: Born2cycle and Pmanderson. Born2cycle appears not to appreciate the seriousness of the warning he received. If an editor can be dealt with as strongly as Pmanderson has been (with an indefinite topic ban on top of his existing year-long ban from the Project), it is well that B2C be reminded of the gravity of the situation. I am not pleased that, after all we have been through already, B2C accuses me of disruption when I simply disagree with him and his interpretation of policy. I accept that it would be better to deal with this at other places, and I will try to do that from now on.

I consider you to be an involved admin, by the way. I am also most dissatisfied with your performance in requesting the ArbCom case in the manner you did (with a vague, broad-brush approach that set the uncertain scope of the case until its very end); and I think you behaved extremely badly in your weak but vexatious evidence against me. Fortunately the arbs had the good sense to ignore it, and I did not waste valuable space responding to it. But I would ask you in any future dealings to assume good faith as you flagrantly refused to in that evidence. If in future you do not understand what I have plainly written, ask for an explanation rather than refusing one, and rather than issuing wild and irresponsible accusations.

Best wishes as always,

Noetica^Tea? 04:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, PMA had a long history of blocks; I have none. To refer to me as his ally is ridiculous in terms of history or positions. There is no comparison. The fact that he was sanctioned and I warned in the same Arbcom case is neither here nor there. The only reason to make any association like that is to attack me personally.

I didn't accuse you of disruption because you disagreed with me or my interpretation of policy.

I said in general (not necessarily about you specifically, but if the shoe fits don't blame me) that it's disruptive (per WP:IDHT) to not accept that the concept of primary topic is supported by community consensus.

Now, I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but it is my impression that you don't accept that the concept of primary topic is supported by community consensus. I have this impression because I've seen you say that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is harmful, and I'm pretty sure you've never cited WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a basis in support or opposition of an RM proposal. In fact, you repeatedly take positions as if the community does not favor titles to be chosen in accordance with primary topic. Again, maybe I'm wrong about this too, but to me it really sounds a lot like "editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end". That is, you seem to stick to the viewpoint that primary topic is harmful and should not be considered in titling articles. The community, by virtue of the existence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, has rejected this viewpoint. But you stick to it. Anyway, that's how I see it. Please enlighten me if I'm misunderstanding. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wavelength. Following that lead, I have applied for access to HighBeam. Noetica^Tea? 12:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access

Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access describes a plan for Wikipedia editors to have free access to JSTOR.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Prose

"Prose" does not only contrast with verse in technical writing, but also with source code examples, tables, lists and all other non-sentence-structured content. I think that 99.999% of our readers understand this. You're the only person IME, IIRC, who has ever wanted to remove the word from MOS.  :-) Please put it back. The distinction is very important where MOS is making it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a conversation about this, SMcC. I fully understand the point you make. But I disagree with your surmise that the term is almost universally understood as you suggest. Some American dictionary evidence (definitions for use as noun, quoted here in full):

• 1 a : the ordinary language people use in speaking or writing b : a literary medium distinguished from poetry especially by its greater irregularity and variety of rhythm and its closer correspondence to the patterns of everyday speech
  2 : a prosaic style, quality, or condition
  [Current M-W Collegiate]

• 1. the ordinary form of written or spoken language, without rhyme or meter; speech or writing, sometimes, specif., nonfictional writing, that is not poetry
  2. dull, commonplace talk, expression, quality, etc.
  [Current Webster's New World]

• 1. the ordinary form of spoken or written language, without metrical structure, as distinguished from poetry or verse.
  2. matter-of-fact, commonplace, or dull expression, quality, discourse, etc.
  [Current Random House Webster's Collegiate]

• 1. Ordinary speech or writing, without metrical structure.
  2. Commonplace expression or quality.
  3. Roman Catholic Church
  A hymn of irregular meter sung before the Gospel.
  [Current American Heritage Dictionary]

Representing rest-of-the-world dictionaries (I checked also Chambers, Collins – and Oxford Dictionary of English, which is often more up to date than any other Oxford offering):

• 1 The ordinary form of written or spoken language, without metrical structure, esp. as a literary form as distinct from poetry or verse. ME. ▸ †b A (prose) story, a narrative. Only in LME. ▸ c A passage of or composition in prose, esp. one for translation into a foreign language. L16.
  Wordsworth The only strict antithesis to Prose is Metre. Classical Review His ... eloquent and fine-cut prose. (c) Punch My tutor ... supposes I am writing Latin proses.
  2 Ecclesiastical. = sequence noun 1. LME.
  3 fig. Plain matter-of-fact expression; dull or commonplace expression, quality, etc. M16.
  J. R. Lowell In the frank prose of undissembling noon.
  4 ▸ a A dull or tedious discourse or written passage; a dull or tedious person. colloq. L17. ▸ b (A) chat, (a) gossip. colloq. Now rare. E19.
  Attrib. & comb.: In the senses ‘consisting of or written in prose’, ‘composing or writing prose’, as prose account, prose author, prose epic, prose style, etc. Special combs., as Prose Edda; prose fiction the genre of fictional narratives written in prose; prose idyll a short description in prose of a picturesque, esp. rustic, incident, character, etc.; proseman a writer of prose; prose poem a piece of prose poetry; prose poetry prose writing characterized by poetic features such as imagery, assonance, etc.; prose sense the meaning of a poem as paraphrasable in prose.
  proseology /-ˈɒl-/ noun (rare) tediously lengthy or turgid prose E20. prosist noun (rare) a writer of prose E19.
  [Current SOED]

In this extensive survey I found nothing to support your claim for the technical meaning of "prose" that you want retained in WP:MOS. The evidence is that it will not be understood, by many readers. Since alternatives are easy to find (I found them!), and in at least one case "prose" has been used there contrasting with "verse", I am not persuaded.

If you want to take the matter further, by all means let's move the discussion (including the citations I provide above, and any others) to WT:MOS.

Noetica^Tea? 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Color, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metamer (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) 10:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Position of conjunction in colon-semicolon list

At [1], you made a change in a bullet list like the following.

These are the possibilities:

• item A;
• item B; and
• item C.

was changed to:

These are the possibilities:

• item A;
• item B;
• and item C.

I think I was taught to use the former construct. Think of it as a numbered list and read it aloud in sentence form:

These are the possibilities:

1) item A;

2) item B; and

3) item C.

becomes:

These are the possibilities: 1) item A; 2) item B; and 3) item C.

This justifies the placement of the and conjunction between the semicolon and the final number (or bullet), just like a conjunction in a comma-separated list. For alignment reasons, it's ugly to place it on the line before the number or bullet, so it goes at the end of the previous line.

Do you have a cite for your form? — AlanM1 (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Alan, we agree. I changed it to the way you like, right? And some other lists in WP:MOS are managed like that also. The reasoning is as you have it, above. This is a good form: "1) item A; 2) item B; and 3) item C". The markers 1, 2, 3 (or *, *, *) are dispensable interpolations; and without them the form would be "item A; item B; and item C". Impeccable! I can provide an external citation justifying this style, if you really want one.

Noetica^Tea? 14:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool :) Just wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing when writing it that way. I went looking for a ref in other style guides and could not find one. — AlanM1 (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A fresh RM can be opened at any time.

You wrote here. "Other admins will re-open an RM they have closed, even. On request!" That an admin will reconsider a close is nothing new and it has been that for many years. That is very different from having new RMs to try to overturn a decision that has been made. The whole point of a contentious RM request, is to have it and then move on, repeated requests not leaving enough time for a new consensus to form is disruptive and can be seen as a form of forum shopping.

"Other admins point out that a fresh RM can be opened at any time." Which Admins (diffs)? -- PBS (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike Cline, for example:

"Any RM discussion can be immediately restarted (especially no consensus ones) (several examples of that underway now) by any editor, and as you know, unless someone move protects the article, the title change can be made unilaterally anyway. Since RM closes can happen at anytime after 7 days, when an editor asks me to reopen the discussion in a no consensus debate, I generally do."

Lack of procedural consistency, combined with complete uncertainty about who among the admins will step up and deal with an RM, wastes editors' time and effort.

Noetica^Tea? 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice

I don't care if it was you or B2C, but someone better restore my comment at Talk:Collins Street, Melbourne as I wrote it, and quick.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here with that suggestion, V = IR (Ohms law). But I'm afraid I don't understand it. I have looked again, and I can't see a problem. I moved some material that was peripheral to the RM, including your comment on an exchange between B2C and me. Since your comment remains in its immediate context with respect to the exchange, its intent is surely well marked. I will try putting some markers between blocks of moved material, for further clarity. I hope that helps! Refactor again within the subsection if you like; but I will resist a return of text that you yourself say is irrelevant to the main section.

Best wishes!

Noetica^Tea? 00:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I guess your refactor did not delete Ohms' comment. Oh well, I presume it's satisfactory to all now. Change at will if it's not. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed again. Let's keep order and readability in what could develop into a complex RM. As mover of the RM, I would like to "steward" administrative aspects of it as I see fit, as a first recourse. Noetica^Tea? 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I overreacted a bit here, so my apologies for that (I'd swear that my vote comment was changed, which is what I was actually upset about, but it wasn't). That's what talk pages are for, right?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Easy to misread details when text is refactored. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Meridian naming

The named meridians are proper nouns and like "Mountains" in Rocky Mountains and Pole in South Pole is capitalized, Meridian in Paris Meridian should be kept capitalized. I started a talk at Talk:Meridian (geography)#Dubious page moves. HTML2011 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in, HTML2011. I appreciate such notifications.

In the dominant linguistic theory of our time (at least on my planet), a meridian whether named or anonymous is not a noun, let alone a proper one.

Also:

1. Not all proper nouns are normally capitalised (summer).
2. Not all proper names are proper nouns (East St Kilda; New Zealand).
3. Not all proper names include a proper noun (United Kingdom; Open University).
4. Not all capitalised items are nouns, or even noun phrases (a Rimbaldian style; Frenchify).
5. Not all capitalised nouns (or noun phrases) are capitalised because they are proper (these are not proper: a dedicated Rimbaldian; Frenchification; a New Zealander; an American).
6. Proper name and proper noun are problematic categories, and assignment to them is often uncertain and arbitrary.
7. Capitalisation is problematic and often arbitrary, which is amply demonstrated by variation across similar languages (a woman, eine Frau; an Australian, un australien).
8. Capitalisation in English is manageable by style conventions to underwrite uniformity and avoid wasteful and ill-informed disputes; for example, toward efficient communication with the worldwide readership of English Wikipedia.

Absorbed and understood? Great. Good luck!

Noetica^Tea? 23:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Cash: disambiguation

You may be interested in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 103#Johnny Cash (song) and other trivial hatnotes: The case for two-term disambiguations (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Proper noun

I took a stab at the article. I didn't completely rewrite it, but hopefully it should be a little better. I found myself doubting certain points, though, so you might want to take a look at it. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

O good! I'm finishing up for the evening here, but I'll take a good look tomorrow. Noetica^Tea? 11:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now read through your work, Kwami. Excellent! I have not yet found time to edit there myself, but I will soon. I may do one or two theoretical tweaks. I can supply a couple of references, and there will the odd style adjustment. For example, I know that you favour certain uses of single quotes, but these are against well-established WP style. A minor matter. Thanks for what you have done. Eventually this sort of improvement can support reforms at WP:MOSCAPS that have so far been without solid theoretical backing in the articles. Noetica^Tea? 00:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two or three places where I got stuck (working off just memory and common sense)—is "John Harrington" a proper noun?, so you're hardly going to insult me by fixing it up. I also forgot to give an example of a single-word common noun that serves as a proper name (we have one, Crown, but don't mention this aspect of it; Court or Church might be better). Also, we don't mention the complication of proper names with 'the' in them ('the Court'), confusing since we say that proper nouns cannot take 'the', and since we don't capitalize the 'the' despite it being part of the name.

We also give 'Moon' as an example, saying it was originally a proper noun. But it requires 'the' for that sense, even though it refers to a unique entity. I wasn't sure what to do with that: a proper noun(?) that requires 'the'? Perhaps 'moon' was a common noun in the sense that it meant a month, or this month's moon, and therefore not uniquely identifiable, so 'the Moon' is a proper name based on a common noun. Well, I'll let you worry about the difficult bits. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mm, the "anti-zombie-fungus fungus". Just had to share. — kwami (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Urk! Many thanks for that intel from the field. I see it, at [2]. Still haven't been able to work through Proper noun, regrettably. All in good time. Meanwhile, this one has been of interest. Noetica^Tea? 04:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In the caps section, we should probably address titles—Your Highness, etc, since that is a potential point of conflict at MOS. E.g., when is "God of Israel" a title, deserving title case, and when is it a description, where capitalization would in effect favour one religion over others? But I didn't see an easy place to add s.t. in without disrupting the flow of what you've crafted. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's one area that needs close attention. It is so important to keep the quality of being "proper" conceptually distinct from the quality of being a "capitalisandum", ugye? ☺ We need that firmly sorted out in this article, as a foundation for reforms at WP:MOSCAPS (and then the world, of course).

My idea is to go through everything that follows the lead, and then return to the lead and adjust its size and scope, and ensure that it heads the article accurately and elegantly. That need not stop you from adjusting things in the lead, of course. Or anything else.

There are a few ways to go on the conundrums you adumbrate above; I'll get to them in due course. It's quite true, as I have pointed out in my revisions to the lead: much about proper nouns and names is indeterminate, contested, and ultimately a matter of convention. Seems Democritus was right all along.

When I have time.

Meanwhile, getting sound argument noticed, let alone responded to or accepted, exercises me at such RMs as this one. Alas, the human world tracks νόμος, not φύσις.

Noetica^Tea? 13:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

I was trying to fix a manual of style error with Campus Life: Umarete Kite Yokatta because they denoted the subtitle with a colon instead of parentheses, which is the proper way when dealing with songs. I was trying to avoid the unnecessary bureaucracy for a simple title fix.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Ryulong. I'm sure that's a fair thing to try to do. It's just that the meaning of the title and the intention behind your request for a technical move were not clear. Let's see how we can work together on this at the RM discussion, OK? It will certainly help if you can link what you consider to be the relevant MOS or naming conventions there.

Best wishes.

Noetica^Tea? 08:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh! Looks like you got what you wanted immediately anyway. Not sure that it's sound; but I won't complain.

Noetica^Tea? 08:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in the first place. WP:MOS-JA was originally improperly worded to state that any title of media with a tilde or hyphen or what have you in the name that designates part of it as a subtitle meant that the subtitle should be treated as if it were a film's subtitle. A song known in Japan as "anna -letmein letmeout-" was then 'translated' into English for Wikipedia's sake as "Anna: Letmein Letmeout", where song titles should have subtitles noted by the parentheses/brackets, resulting in "Anna (Letmein Letmeout)" instead. This was not seeking a disambiguation change, as you thought, but merely correcting the title per the current standards of WP:MOS-JA (this was actually done in the past, but it was undone by another move and I did not notice it until I was applying WP:MOSTM to the band's name).11:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It was also odd that another request, which was just to append another exclamation mark to the end of the title due to technical restrictions for non-admins, was also denied at the same time.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Common name versus preferred name

At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 105#two policies in conflict (permanent link here), User:GabrielF mentioned a discrepancy between two guidelines: "that we use the most common name found in secondary sources to determine an article title, and that we prefer titles that reflects the names that people and groups use for themselves". [sic]
—Wavelength (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
From that section, the editor linked to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC) and 19:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that the same editor has mentioned the same discrepancy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY (permanent link here), with a link to the same discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Wavelength. I'll see if I can find time to focus attention on those matters. Noetica^Tea? 13:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you SO MUCH for fixing the TOC on Champagne. It was driving me nuts but I'm very wiki-code illiterate and didn't want to risk breaking things. :) Very grateful that you swung by and took care of that. Have a great day! AgneCheese/Wine 02:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

De nada. Thank you! ☺ Noetica^Tea? 01:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic in Talk:Interval (music)

Noetica, would you mind if I move the second part of your message dated 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC) into the section about diatonic and chromatic - contributions posted in 2012? We can put a note at the end of the message to warn the readers: the discussion continues in the next section (with a link). Paolo.dL (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for my mistake in the last refactoring. Thank you for fixing it. I am sure I would have fixed it now. I had to post in a hurry as I was busy. I will have time, now, to propose also a fix for the table in "Main intervals". Paolo.dL (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Such alterations will be fine at that talkpage as far as I'm concerned, Paolo. Just so long as people can navigate it – and readily find who said what, and when.

Noetica^Tea? 01:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my page move. In future I will attempt to not invent words. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As you requested I have made an RM for batter, if you'd like to comment. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Johnny. I have indeed commented there, and opposed. Noetica^Tea? 08:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments in RM discussions

Your well-written, clear arguments aren't ignored, especially in Talk:Anne Hathaway#Requested move (2012). Well, mostly your arguments totally worked. However, even when well-written and clear with some strong points, sometimes disagreements comes in the way. By the way, as suggested in WT:disambiguation, either be more civil on JHunterJ or just ignore him. JHunterJ has done enough, and I am about the same side as yours. Well, I asked whether WP:RFC/USER is necessary in User talk:Anthony Appleyard, but Anthony went to WT:disambiguation instead to see what's going on. --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ruby Tuesday

Hi, just a note, your search was "Beatles", but it should have been "Stones" . I would have made the same mistake. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Of course. Thank you. I have explained my error there, and amended the illustrative search. And I have left a question for you.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Strict definition of diatonic scale

Hi Noetica, would you mind to give us your opinion about the two versions of note 3 that we are discussing in Talk:Interval (music)? They are supposed to solve the problem you described in your latest contribution. Thank you. After that, I will address everything you wrote about section "Diatonic and chromatic". Paolo.dL (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Paulo. I'll attend to that when I am not so preoccupied with the outside world. Noetica^Tea? 06:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Away for a couple of days

Busy with other things, so I am absent from Wikipedia for a couple of days. Back soon. Noetica^Tea? 06:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Musical syntax

I welcome your assessment of my recent revisions to the article "Musical syntax", especially in regard to my use of en dashes.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think they are an improvement. Certainly those hyphens were aberrant. Whether en dashes are the best solution is another matter. I would probably rework those headings to avoid the need for any such device from the armoury of punctuation; but the result is good as it stands. Noetica^Tea? 10:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

St. John Ambulance

Do you agree with this reversion of my revision of the article "St. John Ambulance"?
—Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. The word "Order" is capitalised there not because it is in a heading, but "intrinsically". We see it capitalised throughout the article in such constructions as this: "The Priory of England and The Islands is the home priory of the Order, and ..."; but there are three exceptions (as I write), which should now be capitalised. Such use of upper case is not a matter of proper names, despite widespread delusions about capitalisation of nouns being an infallible mark of properness. No, it is a kind of honorific applied to institutions, as in "the Project" referring to Wikipedia (the meaning supplied by the context); or "the University", written in the context of a particular university. I support that usage; and I support "the Order" in referring to "Venerable Order of Saint John", when from the context it is perfectly clear which order is meant. Noetica^Tea? 10:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC) ♪♫ ☺

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps I should have left the upper case unchanged in several similar expressions, such as "Board of Directors" and "Board of Trustees". During the past few weeks, I have been systematically editing articles in Category:Organizations by subject and country (more specifically, Category:Environmental organizations by country, Category:Charities by country, and Category:Non-profit organizations by country). Sometimes, an article does not clarify whether an expression such as "Employee Training Program" is a generic reference (and should be "Employee training program" in a heading, and "employee training program" elsewhere), or is the actual name given to the program. I hope that editors who are more knowledgeable about those articles will refer to the Manual of Style, and decide correctly whether a particular change needs to be undone. I have now capitalized the three exceptions that I found in the article "St. John Ambulance".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For your convenience, here is a link to my 500 most recent contributions.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Duluth model" or "Duluth Model"

The article "Duluth model" has "Duluth Model" in the first sentence. I have seen other articles with that type of contradiction. Apparently, some authors are at least slightly confused about capitalization.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia and legal restrictions

This is an experience of déjà vu (già visto). Again the Italian Wikipedia is alerting its readers to proceedings in the Italian Parliament, and each page is displaying the following message.

Gentile lettore, gentile lettrice, il comma 29 del disegno di legge in materia di intercettazioni telefoniche, telematiche e ambientali (rif.) - se approvato dal Parlamento italiano - imporrebbe ad ogni sito web, a pena di pesanti sanzioni, di rettificare i propri contenuti dietro semplice richiesta di chi li ritenesse lesivi della propria immagine. Wikipedia riconosce il diritto alla tutela della reputazione di ognuno - già sancito dall'articolo 595 del Codice Penale italiano - ma con l'approvazione di questa norma sarebbe obbligata ad alterare i contenuti delle proprie voci indipendentemente dalla loro veridicità, anche a dispetto delle fonti presenti e senza possibilità di ulteriori modifiche. Un simile obbligo costituirebbe una limitazione inaccettabile all'autonomia di Wikipedia, snaturandone i principi fondamentali. Wikipedia è la più grande opera collettiva della storia del genere umano, in continua crescita da undici anni grazie al contributo quotidiano di oltre 15 milioni di volontari sparsi in tutto il mondo. Le oltre 925 000 voci dell'edizione in lingua italiana ricevono 16 milioni di visite ogni giorno, ma questa norma potrebbe oscurarle per sempre. L'Enciclopedia è patrimonio di tutti. Non permettere che scompaia.

A related discussion is archived at User:Noetica/Archive6#"Carpe diem. Seize the day." (October 2011).
—Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Needing Wiki contribution assistance!

Hello Noetica,

I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. I have checked and we meet the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines for a band. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:

http://youtube.com/mrmeeble
http://soundcloud.com/meeble

Let me know if you would be willing to help!

Regards,
Devin
mm @ meeble.com

Devbot (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RFAR Perth opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 11, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Headings and subheadings (unique and non-redundant)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings (version of 21:29, 13 June 2012) has a list of six points.

• (point 1) Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.
• (point 3) Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous.

In the article "Basel Historical Museum" (version of 17:38, 15 June 2012), each one of four different sections has two subsections titled "Location and history" and "Items in the exhibition". It seems to me that it would be impossible to satisfy both of the guidelines that I quoted. What do you recommend? (I have encountered similar situations in other articles.)
—Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Horse-drawn vehicle" (version of 03:20, 24 May 2012) has a similar situation.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For some such articles, I might like the information to be arranged in tables, in which each cell is occupied by one or more paragraphs. If a table is not used, then I tend to prefer the repetition of information in subheadings, so that incoming links to those subsections can convey more precisely what they discuss. (Some viewers of this talk page might object to my expressions "I might like" and "I tend to prefer", but of course there are practical reasons behind my occasionally liking tables and my occasionally preferring repeated information in subheadings.)
—Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Groundwater remediation" (version of 20:57, 17 June 2012) has two sub-subheadings differing only by letter case.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Reconciliation ecology" (version of 22:25, 17 June 2012) is challenging in its second section.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In the article "Red Coat Trail" (version of 23:28, 5 May 2012), I am inclined to combine the section "History" and the section "Red Coat Trail history" as one section under a heading "History".
—Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Environmental impact of roads" (version of 18:51, 23 March 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[I am revising the heading of this section from Basel Historical Museum to Headings and subheadings (unique and non-redundant), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings).
—Wavelength (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)]

The article "Sewage regulation and administration" (version of 04:27, 18 April 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "EPA Sustainability" (version of 08:44, 22 April 2011) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "List of threatened species of the Philippines" (version of 15:21, 21 June 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Motorized bicycle" (version of 19:53, 22 June 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Ontario Minamata disease" (version of 22:29, 4 June 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "I PAT" (version of 04:56, 10 April 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus sign

In the article List of dams and reservoirs in India, I changed a plus sign to "and", although I am unaware of any guideline for that.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Adverbs and hyphens

In paragraph 3 of Tap water#Pin holes (version of 19:05, 19 June 2012), I left the hyphen in the expression "one or more naturally-occurring minerals", although I considered changing it to "one or more naturally occurring minerals" or to "one-or-more naturally occurring minerals".
—Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do remove the hyphen, WL. Tony (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the hyphen at 00:18, 20 June 2012, changing the expression to "one or more naturally occurring minerals". (On Wikipedia, please call me "Wavelength".)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In paragraph 3 of Solar cycle#History (version of 01:57, 25 June 2012), I left the hyphen in the expression "monthly-averaged fractional surface", considering it to be comparable to the expression "Early-flowering plants risk damage from winter frosts", an example given at WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 4 (version of 00:04, 20 June 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) and 03:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please remove -ly hyphens, unless exceptions such as the "early" example you've given. Tony (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your contribution needed in discussion about parenthetical disambiguation

In Wikipedia talk:Article titles#The disambiguation policy does not respect the naming criteria I started a crucial discussion about the controversial policy that some people (improperly) uses to reject our RM. I would love to have your support. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, as I write this it is uncertain how the RM at Talk: Musical scale will go. I think the case is compelling for a move to Scale (music); but that is no guarantee that people will be convinced, or that the RM will be closed rationally. If it is not, of course, the matter can be appealed at WP:Move review, as one of the early cases there before formal adoption of the new process. (I have serious reservations about the process as it is so far set up, but this one would be an interesting case indeed.)

I have not participated at WT:TITLE at all this year, after I was threatened by an editor for opposing inner-circle monopolistic development of policy there. That's how I see it, anyway! My opinion was not softened when I was dragged into complications at WP:AN, WP:ANI, and eventually an ArbCom case. I think much of the present policy at WP:TITLE is ludicrous, and would wither in the daylight of wide community scrutiny. But only a tiny proportion of editors are active there, and some very strange opinions prevail. Not without dissent! But so far it has been extremely hard to get the interests of readers considered, in an informed and objective way. The whole thing is fascinating, as a study in cognitive psychology. All of this applies to WP:DAB too, which has bizarre rules entrenched; and they are (what's worse) interpreted mechanically and without consideration of their purpose.

Good luck to you, then! As for the present discussion at WT:TITLE, note my observations at the RM itself. So-called "natural" disambiguation is often anything but natural and intuitive for readers in search of an article. Parenthetic disambiguation is exactly what they would expect, I say. People are familiar with it in all sorts of contexts. Do not be surprised to see this contradicted – or ignored, more likely. Some very zealous editors are not interested in fresh perspectives that oppose their tidy but wildly unrealistic worldview. Note also my point about Britannica: it uses "Scale (music)", just as we would if this WP article were aligned with practically all the other WP articles that are comparable. Note also these links showing the same choice, across the decades: [3], [4], [5]. Occurrences of "Musical scale" as a heading (as opposed to a phrase in running text) like this one are extremely rare. Quite obviously "Scale (music)" is the natural choice for an article on scales in music, for general reference works. It is the height of absurdity to expect that such a title must appear in running text for it to qualify as the best choice. Nowhere would that be argued for, except on Wikipedia by committed ideologues who have little idea of how an encyclopedia might communicate effectively with its readers. At least, I hope that is their excuse, because the alternative explanation is that they are indifferent to the needs of readers.

We'll see how things go, and then consider what to do next, all right?

Noetica^Tea? 08:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How nice it is to read your comments, written with such a skill, logic and humor. I already used in WT:TITLE many of your points, including repeated reference to Encyclopedia Britannica. Are you sure you cannot post in WT:TITLE the third paragraph in your comment above (after removing a few sentences which are only addressed to me)? It is an outstanding, thorough, convincing and brilliantly written analysis, definitely. It is worth much more than hundreds of other comments posted there. It would be a terrible waste to use such an outstanding text only in a user talk page.

I agree that "only a tiny proportion of editors are active there, and some very strange opinions prevail." But this is also because wiser (at least in my opinion) and less dogmatic editors, like you, refuse to participate. Paolo.dL (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not write "It is the height of absurdity" when you refer to another editor's opinion :-). It is not wise to provoke an defensive response. You want to convince, not to punish mistakes. Although I agree with you, it can be written more politely, as I tried to do already (for instance, you can write: "It is not appropriate"...). I suggest to format your list references as follows, as it is precious information and should be properly higlighted:

About the example provided by Paolo.dL, references are compelling. Most encyclopedias use "Scale (music)", just as we would if this WP article were aligned with practically all the other WP articles that are comparable. These links show the same choice, across the decades:

• Scale (music) in Encyclopedia Britannica
• Scale (music) in Academic American encyclopedia
• Scale (music) in McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of science and technology
• Scale (music) in The English encyclopedia.

Occurrences of "Musical scale" as a heading (as opposed to a phrase in running text) are extremely rare:

• Musical scale in The New illustrated science and invention encyclopedia.

Paolo.dL (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

~The discussion surrounding titles has gotten toxic lately, and I too hesitate to comment much, at least for the moment. Most recently my name came up in a request for arbitration about Perth, in a way I thought was dismissive. (BWT, is the evidence cutoff date June 28, as stated on the case pages, or July 9, as in the message on some talk pages?)

~I have also come under some unpleasant and inappropriate scrutiny in some RM discussions for having edited on this very talk page, the claim being made (undeservedly) that I "agree with" Noetica. I would think an idea and its merits would be more important than who said it, and who might or might not agree with it, but there you have it.

~I'm glad someone is questioning the "natural" terminology; it is not exactly NPOV. In the U.S., the word is used as a marketing tool, often for breakfast products that are believed to stimulate intestinal activity, even though it has no exact meaning for consumers.

Neotarf (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, thank you for your kind words. Neotarf's observations are worth considering – as are yours, of course. I am tied up with other matters just now; but I will make decisions about how to address the broader issues over the next few days, now that the move to Scale (music) has succeeded. I'll get back to you then. I am very reluctant to venture into WT:TITLE. I still see little evidence that discussion can proceed rationally there, or that many months of ill-considered and cloistered development of policy can be readily undone. Seriously detrimental to the Project. Noetica^Tea? 04:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

AC case

Noetica, I know you have opinions on the current Falun Gong case. I believe it's about to close, so this is just a reminder that if you want to say anything (workshop, evidence), now's the time. Tony (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Informative edit summaries

When I edited the Manual of Style at 17:07, 26 June 2012, I used the edit summary "adding link to renamed page". Within a few minutes, I decided that a more informative summary would have been preferable. I have now devised the following edit summary, but it still needs to be 15 characters shorter to be accommodated in the allotted space.

• Previous edit removed "List of commonly misused English words" with edit summary "rm redlink". This edit adds, in its place, "Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words". User:Sandstein moved it at 05:28, 7 May 2012 "without leaving a redirect".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is a version short enough to be accommodated.

• This edit adds "Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words" to replace "List of commonly misused English words" removed in the previous edit. User:Sandstein moved it "without leaving a redirect".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Informal expressions

When I edited the article "Esperanto orthography" at 19:35, 27 June 2012, I changed "say" to "for example" and used the following edit summary. (I missed changing one quotation mark back to a straight quotation mark.)

• "say” [informal]—> "for example"—wikt:say

—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength, thank you for your many detailed contributions at my talkpage. I look at them; but not all of them call for urgent action. When I have more time, I will review your points and see if any follow-up is desirable.

Noetica^Tea? 04:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Hello.

I noticed that you undid my edit there, stating that I should've left an informative edit summary. Not sure what I could've stated. There was not much to say. It's demonstrably correct. Please get back to me when you have a chance. Please leave a talkback notice on my talkpage when you do. Thanks. 69.155.143.207 (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Noetica and watchers, here is a link to the edit, which was performed at 04:20, 27 June 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Anonymous. I undid your edit for two reasons:

1. Your edit summary was uninformative: "Adding fact". WP:MOS is the central style resource for 6,828,462 articles, so proper documentation of changes is imperative. If you, especially as an IP editor, simply say that you are adding a fact, dozens or perhaps hundreds of editors will have to check what that supposed fact is, and whether it is useful on the page. This is an unfair burden to impose on them; you could very easily have given the fact itself in your edit summary – as I took the trouble to do, when I reverted your edit. What's more, in earlier days editors have masked substantial changes under misleading edit summaries, causing enormous disruption and forcing more responsible editors to struggle, much later, to find the source of provisions that somehow found their way onto the page. I therefore take a stand against inadequate edit summaries, and against edits that lack an edit summary.
2. While what you added is indeed a fact, its inclusion is undiscussed. It may appear to permit markup that no editor would ever be justified in using on a Wikipedia page.

I suggest that you take the proposed edit to WT:MOS (the talkpage for WP:MOS), and work out whether and how the fact might be included. Perhaps it could be worded like this:

Never use the largest possible heading, which is generated with =Title=. That size is reserved for the title of the whole page.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 01:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Noetica, I've been concerned for a while that Proper noun has a number of weaknesses, on the linguistic surface and reaching much deeper. I'm looking carefully though it to ponder some of the ontological issues, which I don't myself feel confident in talking about. It's an important article, I believe, and I see you've contributed to it a bit; are you willing to peruse the article and give your opinion on how it might be substantially improved? Tony (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a start on this article after Kwami had done some excellent work on it (see notes, above on this talkpage); but I ran into some obstruction, and put it aside for a while. You're right: time to address it again. I've done so today, as you can see. There's quite a bit more to do. I try to find time tomorrow.

Noetica^Tea? 08:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the article "Proper noun" can benefit by having a Venn diagram or more than one of them. More than 100 editors are categorized in Category:Wikigraphist (being considered for renaming to Category:Wikigraphists).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

When I enter "Proper noun" into the search box of Wikipedia, I am offered "Proper noun mark", which is redirected to "Proper name mark". The article "Proper noun" might benefit from including a mention of proper name marks, if that mention would not confuse the distinction between the expressions "proper noun" and "proper name".

–Wavelength (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Online Etymology Dictionary" has the etymology of "name" here and the etymology of "noun" here. They are mutually cognate (that last word is linked for the benefit of watchers). The article could mention the etymologies.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength, I was dimly aware of that Chinese marker. Thank you for reminding me. Along with the Egyptian cartouche, it now serves in the article to show alternative means of indicating properness. Chinese sometimes also uses guillemets to mark titles of books and the like; but this seemed less relevant, so I have not yet chosen to add it also.

The etymologies of "noun" and "name" (both from Latin "nomen") are important, and central in accounting for the perennial confusion of terms. I have yet to finish untangling things lucidly at the article. I want to add a section with the heading "History of the concept" (or similar) to explain all this, with reference to such sources as Isadore of Seville's Etymologiae – a work that I commend to you as of enormous importance in the history if ideas.

Sound, scholarly development of the article Proper noun, including eventually a change of title, is a weighty matter. WP:MOSCAPS, for one thing, needs a secure theoretical foundation if it is to be reformed from its present status as a repository of ill-founded folk ideas about capitalisation. It all takes time and thought; and it is, alas, political. The reasons for that are to explored in the domain of human cognitive psychology.

Noetica^Tea? 23:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article "Proper noun" is closely related to the articles "Article (grammar)", "Determiner (linguistics)", "Capitalization", "Letter case", "Name", "Noun", and "Noun phrase". Therefore, they can be mutually linked in various places, and information can be adapted for possible inclusion in one or more of them.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Braille#Other symbols (version of 14:09, 28 June 2012) has a symbol for capitalization: ⠠ (dot number 6, in the lower right-hand corner of the cell).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a somewhat related discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Is there a term for the distinction between these uses of nouns? (version of 17:55, 5 July 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 July 5#Is there a term for the distinction between these uses of nouns? (version of 02:47, 9 July 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikibooks (b:) has b:English Grammar/Basic Parts of Speech/Nouns#Common and Proper Nouns (version of 10:07, 25 October 2011)

and b:English in Use/Nouns#Proper nouns (version of 12:16, 5 July 2012)

and b:English in Use/Parts of Speech (version of 02:53, 19 June 2009).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiversity (v:) has v:Nouns (version of 07:56, 3 April 2011),

and Wikipedia has "Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects" (WP:SISTER).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary (wikt:) has wikt:proper noun (version of 07:35, 23 June 2012)

—with translations, including Esperanto wikt:propra nomo (no entry) and French wikt:nom propre (fr:wikt:nom propre) and German wikt:Eigenname (de:wikt:Eigenname) and Italian wikt:nome proprio (it:wikt:nome proprio) and Latin wikt:nōmen proprium (no entry) and Portuguese wikt:substantivo próprio (no entry; pt:wikt:substantivo próprio) and Spanish wikt:nombre propio (no entry)—

and wikt:proper name (version of 12:33, 5 July 2011).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC) and 00:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia (w:) article "Proper noun" has interlanguage links to French Wikipedia (fr:, fr:w:) article fr:Nom propre and German Wikipedia (de:, de:w:) article de:Eigenname and Italian Wikipedia (it:, it:w:) article it:Nome proprio and Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:, pt:w:) article pt:Nome próprio and Spanish Wikipedia (es:, es:w:) article es:Nombre propio.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiktionary article wikt:noun has translations, including Esperanto eo:wikt:substantivo; and French fr:wikt:nom and fr:wikt:substantif; and German de:wikt:Substantiv and de:wikt:Nomen and de:wikt:Dingwort and de:wikt:Gegenstandwort; and Italian it:wikt:sostantivo and it:wikt:nome; and Latin la:wikt:nomen (nōmen); and Portuguese pt:wikt:substantivo;; and Spanish es:wikt:sustantivo and es:wikt:substantivo and es:wikt:sustantivo (Venezuela).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiktionary article wikt:name has translations for the sense "word or phrase indicating a particular person, place, class or thing", including Esperanto eo:wikt:nomo; and French fr:wikt:nom; and German de:wikt:Name; and Italian it:wikt:nome; and Latin la:wikt:nomen (nōmen); and Portuguese pt:wikt:nome; and Spanish es:wikt:nombre. It appears that Francophones and Italophones, in particular, would have some difficulty in distinguishing between "name" and "noun", and therefore also between "proper name" and "proper noun".

—Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links to lists of links to pages with definitions.

• Definitions of name - OneLook Dictionary Search
• Definitions of noun - OneLook Dictionary Search
• Definitions of proper name - OneLook Dictionary Search
• Definitions of proper noun - OneLook Dictionary Search

—Wavelength (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links to lists of links to style guidelines.

• OnlineStylebooks.com: "name"
• OnlineStylebooks.com: "noun"
• OnlineStylebooks.com: "proper name"
• OnlineStylebooks.com: "proper noun"

—Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links to search results on Google Ngram Viewer.

• Google Ngram Viewer: "name,noun,proper name,proper noun"
• Google Ngram Viewer: "noun,proper name,proper noun"
• Google Ngram Viewer: "proper name,proper noun"
• Google Ngram Viewer: "proper noun"

—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast

You may wish to see Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Requested Move: Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast (version of 00:20, 30 June 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Noetica, just to drop a big word of thanks. Although I wish this was more true "But as things stand, those actions should be welcomed as bold and ultimately beneficial." Despite endless Talk on WT:AT WP:DIACRITICS MOSPN I haven't actually acheived anything - can you see a single proposal that hasn't been blocked, let alone get beyond proposal to actual edit? I don't know if the word "bold" is worthy when repeating 20x the same "please indicate 1x Europen name article title you agree with" gets answers like "Tony Blair." Bold, I wish... The only "bold" thing I've done, which was more an accident than "bold," is the shortcut WP:Naming conventions (French) to WP:FRMOS which I used in a summary only once I think as it looked wrong, and have now disabled (click it). Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually - you have achived something. Being reported at ANI for such flimsy and even false grounds is evidence of that. There where no more arguments to refute you. Agathoclea (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am impressed with your persistent efforts toward maintaining high standards in this encyclopedia. The troubles at ANI are now over the horizon (see the archived section). Carry on! I hope we can work together on some matters of common interest.

Noetica^Tea? 22:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Justus Scaliger

I have just discovered the article "Joseph Justus Scaliger" via the article "-ana", and it reminded me of the username "JCScaliger", about whose etymology I can only speculate. The name "Scaliger" is associated with the northern (wikt:septentrionalis) part of Italy.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC) and 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

By means of a Google search for j c scaliger, I found "Julius Caesar Scaliger" and J.C.Scaliger and "No Way to Pick a Fight: A Note on J. C. Scaliger's First: Oratio contra Erasmum" at JSTOR: Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Summer 2008), pp. 255-265.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wavelength: I had already researched the etymology of "JCScaliger", along its with thematic and structural features, some of which it shares with the name "PMAnderson". I had also pondered the northernness attaching to "Septentrionalis". When User:JCScaliger was still operating as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson, I did not say anything about it for prudential reasons. Note the seven-oxen etymology of Latin septentrionalis. You have taken things in a different direction. Interesting!

Noetica^Tea? 22:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Adverbs and hyphens in Wiktionary

During my recent research of Wiktionary (wikt:) for an expansion of "User:Wavelength/About English/Adverbs and hyphens", I discovered these entries.

• wikt:fully-fledged (version of 19:20, 26 December 2011)
• wikt:fully-loaded (version of 13:43, 27 March 2012)
• wikt:newly-formed (version of 00:01, 6 June 2010)

I disagree with the hyphenation in those entries, and this is not the first time that I have disagreed with something that I have found in Wiktionary.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are hereby warned that any further reversions of the MOS page for abbreviations, including but not limited to those regarding the use of commas with abbreviations such as e.g. and i.e., either individually or together with Tony1, will be reported to the WP:3RR violations page and ANI and sanctions will be sought against you for tendentious editing. If you have any questions, please see the consensus note on the MOS abbreviations talk page. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the learnèd Dirtlawyer. Must be, what, nineteen months? How are you'll?

I fear you may be missing some important complications. Recall this from law school:

17. If any person do embezzle, rase, or alter the Mark of any Swan, to the loss or hindering of any man's Game, he shall suffer one year's Imprisonment, and be fined Three Pounds six shillings and eight Pence, and for ever be disabled to be a Gamester.
18. And, to the End that, in Upping-time, no swan be embezzled, it is ordained, that no man draw blood of any swan, till the master of the game, or his deputy, have viewed the said swan, and declared whose the swan is.
19. No Swan, other than clear-billed, is to be marked for the King on the Beak, but only on the leg; for two marks on the beak are unlawful.
20. The Master of the Game may presently sell, or carry away, all Swans that are clear-billed, embezzled, as aforesaid, and all Swans forfeited for Want of Freehold, or by Attaint of the Owner.
21. And yet neither the Master of the Game, nor any other Gamester, may take away any Swan, which is in Brood with any other Man's, or which is coupled, and hath a Walk, without the other's Consent for breaking the Brood.
22. It is ordained, that Commons, that is to say, Dinner and Supper, is to be paid daily by every Banker or Commoner, whether he be present, or absent; but, if he be absent, the Master of the Game is to lay it out for him (as likewise all Dues) till the next Meeting, or Upping; but the said Commons shall not exceed above Twelve Pence a Man, and, if Company will spend more, they are to pay the Overplus by the Poll.
   [... Here I omit some less pertinent matter.]
32. It is ordained, that if any person doth set any snares or any manner of Nets, Lime, or Engines, to take Bittorns or Swans, from the Feast of Easter, to the Sunday after Lammas day; he or they to forfeit to the King's Majesty for every time so setting, Six Shillings and Eight Pence.
33. If there be any Weirs upon the Rivers, not having Grates before them, whereby the Swans and Cygnets may be defended from drowning, the Owner of such Weir shall forfeit to the King Thirteen Shillings and four Pence. [My emphasis.]

I cannot stress enough the gravity of the present situation; and I counsel you to think long and to read deep before any too rash action. Much is in the balance, and – a word to the wise – many a good (no, let's say average) small-town wikilawyer has come to grief for want of precedents at his fingertips.

Anyway, best wishes. Give my regards to Strunk and White. See you in court? (Is this your umbrella, or something left by the sweep? So hard to get good help, don't you find?)

Noetica^Tea? 05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you see this?

[6]

The top of the page says "You must notify any user you report." I must have missed it. Neotarf (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor web design

This web page discusses poor web design by multinational companies.

• Why Country Sites Are So Bad (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers in relation to Wikipedia:Article titles.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution was started at 05:15, 11 November 2011.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Perth PD talkpage

Hi, my concern I guess is that the significant concern about the desysoppings is going to be entirely missed in a tl;dr kind of situation - it's normal to scroll to the bottom of the page to find new points. Would it be at least possible to move the thread order so that the section about the future of RM appears before the community concern about the desysoppings so that appropriate and immediate attention can be directed to that end? (FTR, I actually agree with several of your ideas regarding reform.) Orderinchaos 05:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate what you did at that section, O. It was just a bit too blunt an intervention, since JHJ's role in the current case is discussed relevantly and some very useful initiatives are brought forward there. May I have a go at a more nuanced refactoring, instead? Give me a little while and I'll do so.
Best wishes,
Noetica^Tea? 06:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Yerba mate

A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Yerba mate#Requested move: ? Ilex paraguariensis. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mate (beverage)

A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Mate (beverage)#Requested Move: ? Maté. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Article "Perth" in Wikipedia Signpost

The article "Perth" is mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-16/Arbitration report#Perth (Week 5).
—Wavelength (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ezhiki's talk page

Hello, Noetica. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sequence of events at Perth arbitration case proposed decision

I'm posting here because you started the plea for moderation in the Perth arbitration case. I've been looking into things a bit more and I remembered that the initial proposed decision only included admonishments, with the desysoppings added later. What I realised was that parties to cases are (seemingly) not now notified when the proposed decision is posted, and also not when sanctions are upgraded during voting. I mentioned this here. What I noticed was that kwami (and now I look into it, Gnangarra) didn't post at all to the proposed decision talk page. Deacon posted a 'The Horror' section. It was easy to miss, with all the noise going on, that neither kwami or Gnangarra were having their say. Did no-one realise they were: (a) not notified and (b) not turning up to say something in their defence? I can't believe so many people said something on their behalf without realising that the people they were speaking up for were silent! Though I missed it myself at the time. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Titles of new articles

You can watch for problematic titles of new articles, by adding certain pages to your watchlist. At All pages with titles beginning with User:AlexNewArtBot, you can select any link ending in "SearchResult" to see the latest report for that topic.
My watchlist includes a few of those pages, including "User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult". Thus, I saw "Dietary Management of Parkinson's Disease" and moved it to "Dietary management of Parkinson's disease".
Moving a page is easier when it is new and an orphan or almost an orphan. (I think of such a move as something somewhat analogous to neonatal surgery.) Older articles tend to have links to them from other articles, so renaming the first one tends to involve updating the links from the other articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

E.g. or e.g.,

Please see my discussion of your recent reverts here. Wahrmund (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wahrmund. Welcome to my talkpage! I have made a full answer at the section to which you link. Stay for tea, next time? I have just opened an excellent blend of Badi Patti and Choti Patti. Commercial, but engaging enough.

Noetica^Tea? 05:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Composition Titles

Hello Noetica. I noticed that you added the {{Article discretionary sanctions}} template to this page. If my comments were inappropriate, as per the policies of the arbitration committee, I can try to direct them in a more pragmatic direction. Thanks, Paul.m.kirschner (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No no! It had nothing to do with your contributions. Thank you for caring. The immediate reason was that there has been conflict over a comma following "i.e." or "e.g.", including on WP:MOSCAPS. Some say there should always be such a comma, and I am among those who say otherwise. For the history of the disruptions to WP:ABBR that led to the removal of the recommendation against that comma (indeed, of any recommendation on the matter), see the section immediately above this one.
From your talkpage I see you are interested in classical music and music theory. Those are among my passions too. See Talk:Interval (music) for recent fun and games. I've withdrawn from there for a while.
Best wishes. Stay for a cuppa, next time?
Noetica^Tea? 05:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, most institutions don't use the superfluous comma. There are some more conventions on Wikipedia with which I have slight disagreements, but nothing worth mentioning on the MoS talk page. For example, Wikipedia tends to use "c. 1847" instead of "Ca.1847". Most libraries these days use the latter form - the older style form has been fallen out of popularity since the time I was a kid. BTW, the reason that I mentioned the late Baroque style in this article was that there are many different kinds of organ building. According to at least two sources I found (I have to go soon, I will dig them out later), this is true. While it may be confusing, there are different styles of organ building, so I thought the clarification was important. Many thanks for your contributions to the intervals page, I've used it on more than one occasion. Thanks, Paul.m.kirschner (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics in article titles

Diacritics in article titles are discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 113#The use of accent marks in article title (version of 16:02, 7 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Bouba/kiki effect" or "Bouba-kiki effect"

Should "Bouba/kiki effect" be moved to "Bouba-kiki effect" or to something else (if so, to what?), or should it remain as it is? I am thinking of the guideline at WP:SLASH: "Generally avoid joining two words by a slash, also known as a forward slash or solidus ( / )." Also, I am thinking of the use of the virgule in links to subpages. Also, I am thinking of the possible existence of a precedence from established usage outside Wikipedia.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this, Wavelength. I will look into the matter later today.

Noetica^Tea? 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Make that "within a week, if we're lucky". Now, I think this is a difficult and indeterminate case. I think I would leave it with a slash. Sometimes that is the least unsatisfactory of the available alternatives. Punctuation is not equipped with every tool for every job, and we do the best we can in an all~too~real world.

Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kerala

I'm here to request your kind help for improving the phrasing of the article Kerala. I'm helpless to do it myself, since I have some limitation with English language. Shall you please spare some time for it? AshLey ^Msg 06:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ashley. A bit busy right now, but I'll assess the situation later today (Australia Eastern Standard Time) to see if I can do anything useful there.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Noetica, You have already done an awesome work in lead, thank you very much. Also, I got unexpected help from your friend, Wavelength and I owe you for that too. Your changes were good lessons for me and hopefully, I should try to reach near your expertise one day. Greatfully AshLey ^Msg 07:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ashley. When I saw that Wavelength had got involved, among others, I knew that the article would progress in leaps and bounds. So I withdrew after my initial flurry there. Let me know if more is needed sometime. Perhaps I should step in and review the whole thing for coherence when things have quietened down there.

Best wishes. Stay for a cup of tea next time?

Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Circa

WP:ABBR actually says the following about the abbreviation "c.":

Use for dates only in small spaces and in the opening sentence of a biography (see MOS:DOB).

Since the places the abbreviation is used in the article on π are not small spaces (they are in running text) nor are they in the opening sentence of a biography, the guideline WP:ABBR actually says not to use the abbreviation. It seems there is some confusion in the MOS. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi CBM. Sure! See my latest edit summary at Pi. In fact WP:ABBR links through MOS:DOB WP:DOB (a "hidden" shortcut to WP:YEAR at WP:MOSNUM), and I now quote that as preferring "c." over all alternatives.

Confusion in MOS? Yes, there is a deal of unhelpful vagueness at WP:ABBR. See its talkpage for recent unseemly disputation over commas with "e.g." and "i.e." I'll stay out of it till people get civil and start respecting orderly process.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 23:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the situation with the MOS as I see it. MOS:DOB actually links to the section of WP:MOSNUM above the one that discusses "circa" in general; the section for MOS:DOB only covers dates of birth (as might be expected), and seems to be completely separate from WP:YEAR. The latter does prefer "c.", but WP:ABBR, which is of equal stature, clearly says not to use "c." except in limited circumstances, and only links to MOS:DOB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, the link from WP:ABBR to WP:MOSNUM is inaccurate. It should link to WP:YEAR, which includes this exact text in its treatment of years (without any narrower restriction):

To indicate around, approximately, or about, the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, ca, ca., approximately, or approx., and should be spaced (c. 1291). Do not use a question mark for this function (1291?), as this may imply to the reader an uncertainty on the part of Wikipedia editors rather than on the part of reliable historians.

That independently provides an unambiguous recommendation for the case that interests us. I should have linked that provision instead; I will do so in future.

I have amended my text above. I mixed up WP:DOB (to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) and MOS:DOB (to WP:MOSNUM). Sorry! Some of those shortcuts are themselves unintuitive, and I think reforms are needed for that and other issues with them.

Noetica^Tea? 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't look right. Also that the guideline may not be internally consistent. WP:ABBR says "Use for dates only in small spaces and in the opening sentence of a biography (see MOS:DOB). It should not be italicised in normal usage. Do not use ca." At first I read this to mean the abbreviation is to be used in biographies, etc., but not in normal usage, but it seems possible to read it another way. Most other entries in the table say something to the effect of "Should not be written out in full", so it seems this one SHOULD be written out in full, except for the specifically mentioned historical usage. Turning to WP:MOSNUM or MOS:YEAR or whatever, "the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa,..." the examples here are all given in parenthetical notation, which makes me think the usage is meant for lists or asides, not for normal usage, but again, it's possible to read it another way. Personally I find "circa" is generally used in normal text, and looks right there. The abbreviation "c." is generally used for lists, notation, and peripheral information, and looks right there. Spelling out "circa" in a parenthetical notion is disruptive to the flow of the text and doesn't scan well. Using an abbreviation like this in the middle of the sentence doesn't look right.Neotarf (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact the guideline at WP:MOSNUM is unequivocal and unrestricted – except to years. Like much else there, it needs to be discussed for possible revision, at the talkpage WT:MOSNUM. Unless there is a change, we have a recommendation and it is not so defective as to be lightly ignored. WP:ABBR, of course, needs adjustment on a number of fronts; but that does not affect the clear verdict at WP:MOSNUM.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 02:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I question whether the intent of WP:MOSNUM is to effect a wholesale change of every instance of circa, ca, ca., approximately, or approx. that appears in a body of text. Consider the following sentences, and whether changing "approximately" to "c." would be good practice under any standard:

By approximately 2002, the Rogan Trust had assets of approximately $28 million, according to the indictment.

The goal to restore wolves and begin delisting them by approximately 2002 appears within reach.

Mr. Clark continued doing business as JC Enterprises even after TTI was dissolved until abandoning his operations at the Green Street property by approximately 2002 and the Peoria Street property by approximately 2004, leaving hazardous substances on-site.

Some style manuals specify a preference for spelling out abbreviations. See National Geographic, "Sometimes used in map notes and credits but is preferably spelled out." [7] See also the introduction to WP:ABBR : "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper." You may be interested this example of usage of "circa" in text. [8] I have been unable to find any instances at all of "c." appearing in the body of a text, although I'm not sure how to set up a search to exclude examples of the letter "c" appearing alone or as a copyright symbol.

If you wish to make the guideline more clear that this is to be used "when" abbreviations are used, and not that abbreviations in this unique case are preferred to spelling out the word (after checking the several dozen references listed on your user page, of course ☺), I would support the change, although perhaps this is a low priority unless editors start interpreting the guideline to imply the wholesale change of every instance of "approximately" or "circa" whenever it appears in the body of a text. Regards, Neotarf (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Neotarf, this is a bit late. I appreciate the difficulties and subtleties. They need a general review in a central location, like so much else. I can't worry about all such details these days. Thanks for your sustained interest and contributions to these discussions. Very valuable!

Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, as they say in OzEng. Another interesting discussion, once again triggered by differences in EngVar. But as we say in AmEng, this has opened up a whole can of worms; best to put the cover back on and tiptoe away, pondering the advantages of ambiguity. Neotarf (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation and spaces

In my Internet research to decide whether to put the definite article "The" before "Center for Development Studies" in paragraph 5 of 6 in Kerala#Education (version of 01:32, 12 August 2012), I found the official website at Centre for Development Studies(CDS),Trivandrum,Kerala,India. In the title bar, there is no space before the opening parenthesis, and a space is missing after each of the three commas. Paragraph 2 of the same section of the Wikipedia article states that "Kerala became the first state in India to be recognized as a totally literate state", so we Wikipedians face a challenge when an official website of an educational institution in Kerala displays its usage of punctuation so prominently. (Millions of people live in other parts of India.)
—Wavelength (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement sounds like spin, anyway. Recognised by whom? My inclination, when there's enough wrong in the text of a potential quotation, is to paraphrase most or all of it. Tony (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Quoted you

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Template_revision Nobody Ent 21:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, recognition at last!
♫♪
Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

English-language style guides in India

Out of curiosity about what is recommended for English-language writers in India, I performed various searches on the World Wide Web. They included different combinations of these terms: style, guide, manual, english, india, site:.in, site:ac.in, site:gov.in, report. Some results pertained to style of attire. Some results pertained to aspects of writing, but not the ones discussed in WP:MOS. Some results referred to other style guides, including CMOS (sometimes as CMS) and MLA.

However, I found the following result, which is a style guide of the type that I was seeking.

• Comptroller and Auditor General of India
• Style Guide for AUDIT REPORTS: (2nd Edition) November 2005

Also, I found the following result, which is interesting because of the size of the population of China.

• The English Style Guide: A Practical Writers Guide for Chinese People Who Use English as a Second Language - Crossword.in

—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for those! I looked up the Indian one. Pretty poor and derivative, with systematic punctuation errors like this:

• e.g.,.

As for the Chinese one, that interests me especially because of my research interest in contemporary Chinese learners' understanding of punctuation in English (which is woeful, of course). I found the book at Googlebooks. It's dreadful. Little more than a compendium of superannuated platitudes, inaccurately recalled and reproduced.

Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have not seen English As She Is Spoke it does have a small cult following, particularly among those who have abruptly given up the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Neotarf (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, in your edit summary of 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC), you twice referred to loving to hate. Do you have in mind a hatred of what is bad, a hatred that reinforces a love of what is good? (Amos 5:15) Alternatively, do you have in mind a schadenfreude (wikt:schadenfreude), a joy based on the misfortunes of others? (Proverbs 17:5)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength, perhaps this is an Americanism, but every successful soap opera must have a villain that you "love to hate". People can become "hooked" on these TV characters, especially the negative ones, and keep coming back to watch the program day after day, just to see what despicable thing the character will do next. Neotarf (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, the cinema of the United States (informally "Hollywood") and the cinema of India (informally "Bollywood") have a monetary motive in causing viewers to become addicted to dramas and characters, but some people have a spiritual motive in not becoming addicted. (Philippians 4:8; 1 Corinthians 10:11)

For us who work to develop a high-quality manual of style, there is no satisfaction in seeing the negative features of low-quality manuals of style, because of their bad influence on their readers. However, being aware of their existence can be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

One small detail, the American TV industry, which used to be mainly in New York, is separate from the Hollywood movie industry.

The problem of what to do about a person who is malicious, scheming, abusive, controlling, or manipulative is not exclusively a religious question; even Wikipedia concerns itself with civility.

I forgot to mention, the "love to hate" comment was also an oblique reference to the notorious Strunk and White style guide, that many professional editors regard with an unreasonable loathing. Such things are meant for beginners, and I don't see any way to learn how to write without some arbitrary rules. The problem comes in with a style guide like MoS, which demands greater sophistication and flexibility, and some vision about what style means in the context of this unique electronic media.

Neotarf (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You will have to excuse me for staying out of this conversation. My attention is entirely focused on developments at ArbCom, and probably will continue to be for a while. ☺
Noetica^Tea? 20:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am aware, and the remark was not really for you anyhow. I am not unmindful of what is going on at ArbCom and I do think it matters about RM, but we have just had a major holiday break in this part of the world, there will be no flights in or out for The Duration, and there is also the matter of whether we will be able to obtain basic services, like water. Plus, it is the middle of the night here, and I do want to do justice to the subject matter that I have contributed to for the last several months. I will be along there shortly. You may or may not like what I say. Neotarf (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2012‎ (UTC)

O, please note: I'm not suggesting that you go there or that you not go there; and of course everyone should say what they want, not what anyone else might want. Enjoy the holiday break! ☺ Noetica^Tea? 21:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to enjoy. Everyone who could get out has gotten out already, I was unlucky. In the meantime, I write the easy comments, trying to gather my thoughts about the other and think of what I want to say that can be fair to everyone. I also have an impression of the people at "Men's rights", that they are well intentioned, but perhaps because of their horribly negative dealings, have gotten NPOV but do not realize it. When I looked at everybody's contributions, I also saw a lot of interest in Lesbian issues, this strikes me the same as having members from the Jewish project edit articles about Islam, but I don't remember now where I saw that and I certainly can't make those characterizations about everyone in the project. Still, something needs to be said. The confused young men of the English-speaking world are going to see that article, and no other, and believe every male who talks of "rights" must be a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather, and if they want to be a Real Man, they must do the same. We do the young people no service to provide them with "information" like this. Neotarf (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

SMOS

Noetica, I strongly agree with your note here about the premature listing of SMOS as a MOS page. I have in mind significant changes—not just that ugly "More" sign. Tony (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See recent discussion at WT:MOS, where I say more about my stance. It's going to be a useful addition to MOS, but we have to be patient.
Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Waiting on you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait no longer: my action at WP:ANI.
☺
Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[I updated that link: the section is now archived.–Noetica^Tea? 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)]

Hi Noetica. I'm just curious, but why do you consider moving Men's rights to Men's rights movement to be controversial? (outside of the RfC/move procedures) In other words, what are your concerns with the new title? The content of the article is dominated by the men's rights movement, so it seems to be a sensible decision, but I'm interested in your opinion on it. Kaldari (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I found your comments at the old page move discussion. It seems to mostly relate to not marginalizing groups by putting their issues into specific "movement" articles. While I agree with the premise of your argument, I have to disagree with the specific case of men's rights. "Men's rights" simply isn't a mainstream enough concept at this point for it to have adequate 3rd party sourcing to stand on its own. The overwhelming majority of information on the topic comes specifically from men's rights movement sources. Even the movement itself is poorly covered by 3rd party sources. Thus I don't think it is really a parallel situation to women's rights or civil rights. Those groups have a long and acknowledged history of struggling for certain basic human rights. The idea that men must also struggle to assert their rights is still a rather fringe viewpoint. As soon as there is a U.N. Report on Men's Rights I'll be happy to see an article devoted to that issue on its own. Kaldari (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[Answering Kaldari:] At 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC) you posted in the WP:ANI thread that is linked above. At 15:04 (the timing is important to note) I answered you there, with this text:

Kaldari, you write: "Noetica's claims that this discussion was somehow irregular are unfounded." But you do not address the concrete points that I make at all. Read them, and answer them. Note the points about the misleading RFC notice; note the hard black-letter statement of policy at WP:TITLE. I look forward to your response to those, rather than your expression of opinion that simply fails to engage with the submission I have made.

But you did not answer me. May I ask why not? I really would like an explanation. I note that you did post again at 20:14 (that's 5:14 on a winter morning, where I live), but did not address my response to you.
You will perhaps understand that I was heavily preoccupied in the hectic environment of ANI – to a deadline set by Kevin Gorman. I had my work cut out, and stayed up well into the night to deal with things at ANI. I could not at the same time handle any diversion to my talkpage for your posts of 13:39 and 15:33 (see above). Still, if you will give me a belated response here to what I put to you at ANI, I will then be happy to answer your questions here.
Best wishes,
Noetica^Tea? 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Noetica. Sorry that I didn't reply earlier. I think your interpretation of WP:TITLE is basically correct. However, this wasn't a regular page move. The proposal was a change in the article scope, which included a page move. For an issue of this complexity, I think an RfC was more appropriate than a RM. I honestly don't believe that anyone was trying to be sneaky. Typically an RfC will get more outside feedback than an RM will. I also don't think the move was as controversial as you made it out to be. There had been numerous discussions on the article talk page in the preceding year about the sourcing/OR/scope problems with the article (basically the same problems from the original RM). I think it was apparent to most of the editors who had been working on the article that it was never going to work at the current title and we were just going to have the same arguments and problems over and over again unless the page was moved. Lots of effort was put into making the article work at the "men's rights" title, but even after several overhauls, it was still problematic. Maybe "men's rights movement" will be an improvement, maybe it won't, but I think it's worth trying, and apparently so do most of the other editors. Kaldari (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kaldari. I draw your attention to this paragraph of mine, to which I now add underlining:

But you did not answer me. May I ask why not? I really would like an explanation. I note that you did post again at 20:14 (that's 5:14 on a winter morning, where I live), but did not address my response to you.

This is an important matter for me, and I would appreciate your full, non-selective response.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 06:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember. Probably didn't have time to adequately elaborate, or maybe I just got distracted by something else. Kaldari (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Kaldari. Let me see if I have got this right:

• You had time to ask a question that would call for a long answer at my talkpage while I was clearly under duress with a tight deadline; but you "probably" got distracted or did not have time, and did not answer a direct request to address points that I clearly laid out for you, in a WP:ANI thread that is now being cited (see WT:TITLE) as somehow settling a weighty policy issue for the Project. But five hours later you again posted at my talkpage, again with an issue that is not at all urgent.

Have I got that right? Note carefully, please: All of that is without malice, and without any intent other than necessary clarification. I trust you will indulge me; I judge the course of recent events and the conduct of participants in them to be of some interest.

Noetica^Tea? 06:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My question didn't have a deadline. I was just trying to see if there was any common ground that we could build on to settle the page move issue. You didn't have to answer it right away or even at all if you didn't want to. I'm very sorry if this has caused you any frustration or ill feelings towards me. I'll try to be more considerate in any future dialog with you. Kaldari (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict(s)

Thanks for fixing my comment; I got four edit conflicts trying to post it and it ended up out of sequence.Neotarf (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Giraffedata/comprised of

Because of my recent revisions to the article "Kerala", that article is now on my watchlist, and, because of this revision by User:Giraffedata, I found User:Giraffedata/comprised of, which may interest you and your page watchers. A record of that editor's contributions is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Giraffedata. The words "compose", "comprise", "consist", and "constitute" are discussed at compose / consist / comprise /constitute... - EnglishClub.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) and 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice but it was closed before I could get there...

I'll respond on the article's talk page.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

capitalization of braille

Thought you might have some thoughts: Talk:Refreshable Braille display#Moves?. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Kwami. I have been diverted to other matters recently; see recent action at WP:ANI. You can tell from that: I am mostly focused on procedural anomalies with page moves lately. I reallocated those braille articles to the "contested technical" category for procedural reasons also, but I did not intend to get into discussion of them myself. Life is short, as we both know.
♫♪
Noetica^Tea? 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disrupted consensus

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Consensus#terminology where "consensus" wrongfully excludes some editors (version of 00:27, 14 August 2012) and Wikipedia talk:Consensus#proposing to clarify that wrongfully disrupting consensus is policy violation (version of 00:27, 14 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom request: Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Noetica^Tea? 03:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

[Hyperpedantically notifying myself; one can't be too careful these days – especially at ArbCom ☺.]

I respect the fact that your Wikipedia attention is at this time concentrated on arbitration, and I wish you success in your endeavors there. If I post comments here during that process, I do not intend to dilute your attention there, but sometimes posting here allows me to remove items from my list of things to do. After the proceedings have been concluded, you can, with less encumbrance, read my comments and possibly reply.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TITLE

Noetica, sorry for answering to Neotarf on your page by mistake. Your names begin in a similar way (Noet - Neot). Paolo.dL (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Misspellings in piped links

(not urgent)

Occasionally, I find a piped link where the title of the target page is spelled correctly, but where the displayed text is a misspelled version of the title of the target page. In my revision to "Norm Coleman" at 20:56, 21 August 2012, I changed "Artic National Wildlife Refuge" to "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" by removing the displayed title and the pipe character, thereby causing the title of the target page to be displayed. Apparently, someone knew the correct spelling, but (for some reason) wanted to display the incorrect spelling.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Men's rights

As you raised the prospect of filing a move review soon, I will note there is currently a RM discussion. I would ask that you wait until that discussion is resolved before you proceed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, welcome to my talkpage. You refer to this "closing statement" of mine at ArbCom, right?

As you must know, I have no complaint about your starting a new RM request at Talk:Men's rights (or whatever we should be calling it). I said early on that KillerChihuahua's irregular action as an involved admin risked a "constitutional crisis", and here we are in the thick of it. I will, as I said in my statement, consider an approach for review through the new process. It's neither your fault nor mine that this is an unholy mess. We know very well where the fault lies. I will think carefully about how I might contribute to restoring due process; and we can keep in touch about that if you like. As I have stressed, due process is the issue for me – not so much the turbulent particularities at that benighted page.

Stay for tea next time? Some of these Malaysian domestic products are worth sampling: better than what they normally export.

Noetica^Tea? 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Surviving Wikipedia

(not urgent)

You might be interested in User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia (version of 08:48, 1 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC) and 01:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been declined. The voting arbitrators felt that there was not a sufficient case for arbitration. Should you wish to contest the move of the article's name, you should try Wikipedia:Move review. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My sincere thanks, Alexandr. I am delighted with the final state of the page immediately before your closure of my request. Let anyone interested in these matters read it with care – as a record of opinions, actions, questions, answers, and manifest refusals to face up to responsibilities by certain named parties. I am particularly pleased that, while the committee decided not to examine the issue in a full case, they encourage an approach through Wikipedia:Move review. That clarification is very welcome. I'll now reflect on what course of action might be most beneficial to the Project.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 13:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

You were mentioned here.[9] Neotarf (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Old news; that was before the ANI discussion. Check the timestamp. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Appraising hidden agendas

You may be interested in the following 1999 news article from the Sunday Herald. [10] Since it is behind a paywall, allow me to quote from it briefly.

FORGET the old gag that Scotland's a place where men are men and the sheep are nervous. If you are Neil Lyndon, hero of the men's movement and self-styled victim of the massed ranks of feminist harpies, it's a country where women are women and the men are scared. Lyndon shot to infamy in 1992 with his anti-feminist tract No More Sex War. Within months of publication, he had vanished from sight, battle-scarred and broken from the flak and fireworks that greeted his book.

His career ruined by accusations of misogyny, his answer-machine plagued with messages from women vowing to castrate him, and his marriage in tatters, Lyndon decided to shut up and disappear. Seven years later, he has resurfaced in Scotland. Today, Lyndon lives in obscurity in Perth, where he is building his own house and re-building his life after his one-man war on women ended in financial ruin and shame. Fittingly for a man who railed against the inequalities of fathers in society, he is also raising his teenage son after a bitter divorce from his second wife.

The paper is apparently published in Scotland, and the Perth in question seems to be in the Scottish outback.

Lyndon was savaged in the press when his book was published. He was then one of the leading feature writers in the UK writing for most of the London broadsheets but, after a sound "monstering" in every newspaper in Britain for being a woman-hating boor, his work dried up completely.

Apparently political conservatism has not gained the traction in England that it has in the U.S.

Regarding recent wiki-wars, there is this site, http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/ and I understand it is traditional not to link to such sites here, so I encase it in "nowiki" markup. I had no idea such things existed. Note the telling "Overview of Mod Policy"

No linking to SRS or affiliated subs. Advocating for violence/illegal acts may be removed (this is not the same as advocating for changes to the laws governing these acts)

A further search for "SRS" yields something a little more informational in nature. [11] This site (Men's Rights, not SRS) has recently (2012) been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I seem to remember took on pro bono cases for the purposes of advancing civil rights/voter's registration in America's troubled South back in the 60's. [12] report:[13]

Finally allow me to report this conversation from dinner last night: Kiwi: "Auckland isn't even known for linguistics, if you want a linguistics university you go to Waikato." Me: "And where do you go for men's rights?" Kiwi: "Men don't have rights. Get with the program. [sputtering, unintelligible...] Look at what happens when they get rights. Like [what goes on in Saudi]."

So I would suggest that the use of the phrase "men's rights" is undergoing or has undergone some sort of, I don't know, paradigm shift maybe. In the past it meant something like a Hammurabi-like delineation of the difference between free men and slaves, with property rights of women and orphans thrown in for good measure. Then it went to a "rights of man" kind of grandiose sweeping vision of standing up to oppressors. Women were not included in this assessment as they were generally not part of public discourse. Then perhaps the feminism of the 60s, where mentioning such legal situations as the unequal application of social security laws to men with regard to their wives' salaries was not unheard of in feminist tracts of the era. Now it is a wonder of the social media, perhaps a dog-whistle phrase like "states rights", and the occasion for sputters if mentioned over a glass of tea.

A pity this information is only available off-wiki. In connection with this, I note some recent conversations that have come across my watchlist about the future wiki use of social media, like quoting information from Twitter.

According to my talk page, I am extremely busy at the moment, so I had best vanish again. Cheers.

Neotarf (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

All fascinating, Neotarf; as are the labyrinthine twists of WT:TITLE these days.

I will not be doing much directly with that perilous page Men's rights, or whatever political correctness would have us call it. As I said long ago when KillerChihuahua came to my page to tell me I was wrong during the 2011 RM, and to deliver her opinion on a core topic of the RM:

"I regard the article as a travesty of Wikipedian ideals, because of arrant political involvement from competing interests. I have simple factual material to contribute (as I have done); but I doubt that it can have a fair showing, so I expect that I will keep away. Another reason for doing so is that I feel intimidated and under threat of arbitrary sanctions, given the community probation you have imposed and the censorious moves you have recently made against an editor. It's just too dangerous, even for innocent bystanders. I see little hope for improvement of the article or the situation surrounding it."

That's from my Archive 6. My view has not changed; nor have my feelings of dread.

I have been reading David Benatar's The Second Sexism: Discrimination against Men and Boys (2012). What a tour de force! Great to see a professor of philosophy presenting a detached analysis of all the issues. Needless to say, he predicts the stupid formulaic reactions that his thesis will elicit in certain sectors that are immune to careful thought. Tsk! Well, that's the way of the world; and alas, the way of some parts of Wikipedia.

This is a kitten-free zone, of course. But we manage to maintain a perfectly comfortable environment. Stay for karkadé next time?

Noetica^Tea? 08:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)