User talk:Wavelength

/What links here (29 September 2008) (165 pages) – /Archive 1 (99 kilobytes) (64 sections) (created 29 September 2008)

IMHO though

re: I missed one detail. If I had mentioned to you that I had already provided (at the bottom of Talk:Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership) a link to the archived discussion, then you probably would not have deemed it necessary to provide a link at the top. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL... IMHO, any false link should be fixed when archived... otherwise wastes folks time, n'est pas? Among other things, one cannot safely assume (the hubric pov) that someone passing by will read to the bottom... or predict when they will traverse the link... which they cannot see... (yet). Ooops! <g>Think on it. Cheers! // FrankB 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desynchronization

Hi, I followed the link out to Desynchronization from your recent edit to LHC, and the article is just so devoid of content that I proposed it for deletion. If you (or somebody you know) can beef it up, that would be great (I think 5 days is the nominal period before an admin might delete it), but it has been there for 4 years as an orphan with nothing to offer, so I think it needs to go if it can't be improved. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my recent link to it was from Special relativity. Anyway, maybe Special relativity and Desynchronization can be merged if the latter is not expanded. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation-evolution controversy table

Hi,

Just to let you know, I've removed the link you placed to the table, basically for the reasons I detail in my edit summary - the table is not in mainspace, it's not regularly maintained, there's no sources and it currently reads like original research. I think it's of moderate use to wikipedia editors, but I don't think the readers are done a service linking to the page as it is now. However, as I am not the boss of wikipedia, I could be wrong. If it were sourced and put in mainspace then I could see it being useful, but ultimately I see it as something that should be redundant to one of the mainspace pages already extant (and perhaps is, I'd have to dig). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki globe

Hi! As I'm not sure that you are checking the language ref. desk everyday, I leave my message here. As for the ja, I think the balance of ウ and ィof this image is very good. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is on my watchlist and I check it every day or almost every day. Katakana#Table of katakana shows a dakuten on ウ in this combination. (The adverbial phrase "every day" is spelled as two words. The one-word form is an adjective.) -- Wavelength (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my poor English and thank you for pointing it out. ヴィ is used for v sound like Visconti/ヴィスコンティ and ウィ is used for w sound like Windows/ウィンドウズ. I happened to find that image at the ja Village pump and the last one in the section is the one I showed you. BTW, your user name in ja is 波長. Oda Mari (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the information. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP essay FPO

Hi Wavelength. I'm going to yank the link to the essay Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions, which has been cast by the authors as "FPO", a corollary to WP:NPOV. IMO, it's not an adequately developed essay to merit a link. Further, Wikipedia:FPO currently is a shortcut to [Wikipedia:Featured portals]. Hope that's OK with you. WP:FPO could of course be redesignated in the future if there's an adequately developed FPO essay to shortcut to, one that enjoys some consensus-- but plainly it's not there yet. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of links promotes a lack of awareness, and a lack of awareness promotes a lack of development.

Linking promotes awareness, and awareness promotes development.

-- Wavelength (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But, IMO, this sort of development is not generally expected to be fostered by linking from WP:NPOV, a core content policy page, to a completely undeveloped and very debatable essay, as was the case in this instance. I left intact the link you inserted from WP:NPOV to WP:FRINGE, a well developed guideline page. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions

Wavelength, I had to revert one of your See also links, and I came over here to look at your contributions. I'm surprised. I'm really not the expert on these things, but this looks like a case of WP:POINT to me (specifically, point 6). Can we talk this out over at WP:ANI? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dank55, I am surprised by your message. I have been working through Wikipedia:List of base pages in the Wikipedia namespace, to bring more attention to as many pages as possible (especially, orphaned pages, whether or not they are tagged as such). I actually thought that my efforts would be appreciated.

I checked your contributions, and it seems that you are referring to my editing Wikipedia:Explain jargon by adding a link to Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms. I was not trying to illustrate a point. According to WP:POINT, point 6 is: "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community". Maybe I have misinterpreted policy. If that is the case, please explain it to me (as clearly as you can) so that I interpret it correctly. In what way was adding that link inappropriate?

(By the way, are you an administrator? Your link to WP:ANI seems to suggest that you are, but I could find no indication of that on your user page.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, which is why I'm bringing up WP:ANI. You're making rapid additions to policy and guidelines pages, and as one of the guys who keeps track of these things, it's frustrating when one person creates so much work for everyone else, but I'm really not the guy to be making the call whether it's "too much". All I can tell you is, it's frustrating. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you find it frustrating, I apologize. I am guessing that "so much work for everyone else" refers to reverting my changes (or, at least, examining them). Can you see my perspective in anticipating people thinking, "Oh, I am glad that someone brought that page to my attention. I did not even know that it existed."?

On some (but not all) occasions when I have added links to these pages on article pages, they have been reverted with the explanation that the links were not to other article pages.

One reason for my proceeding rapidly from A to Z is to avoid forgetting related pages which I have already seen, when I see other related pages later in the alphabet.

In summary, I am perplexed as to how best to bring attention to those pages. Maybe I should abandon that plan.

--Wavelength (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information is at (permanent link) Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (section "Adding links to Wikipedia namespace pages"). -- Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens - thanks for the ref

By comparing your edits with the MOS section (WP:MOS#Hyphens, section 3, point 4) I can see they follow policy, and are a good illustration of the point. Now if I just felt comfortable so many other places, where I think a hyphen is _needed_.

BTW: How are you finding the -ly situations? Shenme (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I followed Special Pages to Pages with the most revisions, and, starting with number 1, I opened one page after another, and searched on each page for "ly-". Most occurrences required correction; on one page, I encountered "family-friendly" (where "family" is a noun which happens to end with "ly") and that hyphenation does not require correction. I chose those pages (including many in which I have very little interest in the topic) to maximize attention to this mistake which is running rampant on Wikipedia, on the Internet in general, and in print media. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: (temporary link) Talk:Hyphen#Adverbs and/or (permanent link) Talk:Hyphen (section 20 "Adverbs")

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. The question of English usage is more complex than you appear to allow for, and differs between the national varieties of English. You are being disruptive and unhelpful, although I appreciate your taking care over family-friendly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just changed the wording of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, section 3, point 4. Unfortunately, you did not provide any source to support your view. I followed the link which you provided in your message, in addition to subsequent links, and I was unsuccessful in my search for such support. Which national varieties of English have which differences regarding whether or not to use a hyphen after an -ly adverb? What support is there for the view that they have those differences?

-- Wavelength (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your change (to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, section 3, point 4) has been reverted.

I have checked the first 200 pages listed at Pages with the most revisions.

I have checked the pages listed at Wikipedia:Most frequently edited pages (permanent link: here), as far as Dwight Howard, with a rank of 1942.

I bypassed about four pages because of their subject matter.

On some pages, I found occurrences of "ly-" where I was not sure of what to do, so I left them unchanged for now, but corrected occurrences that were straightforward if I found them on the same page.

Eventually, I reasoned that someone seeing my corrections to some occurrences might conclude (not necessarily correctly) that my not correcting other occurrences on the same page was an endorsement of those other occurrences. Therefore, when I found pages with occurrences causing me uncertainty, I eventually tended to bypass such pages altogether.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[I wikified the word "reverted". -- Wavelength (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Because of the foregoing challenge to my corrections, I started these five discussions, listed here in the order in which I started them.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to the Golf article

Wavelength, I was busy rewriting the the types of shots section in the Golf article as you made your edit. So for convenience sake on my end, I undid, and subsequently redid your edit of a misused hyphen. I figured I should give you a heads up. Happy editing, Eaglebreath (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy visit

Wavelength, I'm just dropping in to say hello, and to let you know that I appreciate your recent work at WP:MOS, and especially its talkpage. Discussion there is perennially difficult. Editors have a hard time adjusing to the task at MOS, which is not the same as at normal articles. This matter of prescriptiveness is such a confusion, and so politically mixed up! It needn't be, of course: if people would only step back and make a fresh appraisal of MOS in its context. They should reflect on the kind of work that is useful there, and the critique of MOS's role that is essential from outside, but not helpful if carried on relentlessly from within.

I do what I can, but sometimes it's most productive to hold off and let others take on a "tour of duty".

Good to see you also at the language reference desk. Myself, I am not committed to zealous work there. But I contribute in depth and detail where I find I can.

Best wishes to you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your appreciation. I appreciate your work too. When I started my little project to remove incorrectly placed hyphens, I neither anticipated nor wished that I would be involved in a long discussion about the guideline. Generally, I find it to be more difficult and more time-consuming to prepare thoughtful messages than to perform simple editing tasks. That is why I prefer to stay with the latter. However, it happens from time to time that the usual "business" of editing is interrupted by a "court case" because someone else has a different "view" of how things should be. When that happens, I prefer to have interchanges with editors who discuss disagreements with straightforwardness, rather than with those who selectively dodge comments and questions, practice self-contradiction, and carry on filibustering. Such a waste prevents Wikipedia from being as good as it can otherwise be.

I do not know how much or for how long I will be contributing at the language reference desk. If I provide only one or more links in answer to a question, and maybe a brief comment, I hope that the questioner accepts that as better than nothing. I am preparing myself to become more involved in translating articles.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barn star of Bethlehem

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		to Wavelength for diligence above and beyond. When I see that Barn Star of Bethlehem above the shed, I'll think of you! shiny one. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this kudos. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hello! My name is Gopal81 and I would like to nominate you for adminship. According to your edit history, it seems you are not already an administrator. If, however, you do not wish not become an admin, you can decline by leaving a message on my talk page requesting so. And before I forget:

Gopal81 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Gopal81 to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wavelength. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Thank you for considering me for the position of an administrator. However, I do not wish to become one at this time. Also, I do not wish to do so during the next twelve months.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, I think that's a great pity. I'm very impressed with your work at WP, and I'd certainly support your candidature. BTW, I see you don't have email enabled; I wonder whether you will consider enabling it .... Tony (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tony, for your comments about my work and about my candidature. One reason for my not wishing to become an administrator is explained by the Peter Principle, and one reason is the cost in time. If I enable e-mail, is an exclusive whitelist possible? Even if it is, I still might not want to enable e-mail. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a whitelist (blacklist?) is not possible, but your email server should be able to syphon or block any sources you don't want after the first time (the user's name is in the title). Can I say that in my nearly four years here, I've never received a single unwanted or negative email (and not many unsolicited in toto)—and I'm a reformer, hanging around controversial places. You could always try it and flick it off if you don't like it. PS If you want your own log-in email address to remain confidential, you need to reply via the correspondent's "Email this user" button, not directly. That guarantees anonymity on both sides. Tony (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions about MOS and hyphens

Wavelength, best wishes to you for the season.

As I foreshadowed, I have now stopped editing WP:MOS and discussing at WT:MOS. I think you can see why. Recent developments make the prospect of useful dialogue that respects Wikipedia norms even more remote. But I will respond here to the questions you pose. (Note Dank55's refactoring to make a new section starting at your questions. For clarity and independence in major headings, especially in archiving, the heading would be better as "== The original problems with -ly adverbs (specific and general) ==". I advise making that change.)

Now: "Specifically, if I were now to correct again the hyphenated expression in Electric guitar#Sound and effects, paragraph 4, to 'specially designed sound cards', would I have the support of the Manual of Style?" The short answer is yes. And no long answer is necessary! Our guideline and examples certainly cover the case you mention.

As for removing the "under discussion" tag, there are no strong precedents for when to do it. I was waiting for the section to be archived first, but that was delayed by new additions to the section. I think discussion has effectively stopped, and I advise removing the tag. If it resumes, the tag can easily be re-applied for the duration of new discussion.

Feel free to contact me, at my talkpage or by email, if you would like to pursue anything in which we have a mutual interest. You are a translator? I am. Which languages do you prefer to work with?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my questions. I intentionally posted those questions before the preceding subsections were archived, with the purpose of maximizing attention to the problems. Maybe that was a wrong decision on my part.
The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style is at the intersection of two relative "anarchies". Firstly, English has no official language regulator. Secondly, Jimmy Wales has (to a large extent) left it to Wikipedians to work things out together, to the best of their collective abilities. In each case, there is more freedom (than otherwise) to make individual choices, and perhaps more likelihood of disagreeing with the choices made by others. Your decision not to waste more time in editing WP:MOS and in discussing at WT:MOS reminds me of the decisions of others not to waste more time in contributing to Wikipedia. I hope that those two pages will become more attractive "workplaces" for you in the near future.
Yes, I am a translator, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but in neither case to any large extent, so far. I prefer to work with the languages indicated in the language userboxes on my userpage, and approximately in the order of their being listed, which is also approximately the order of my proficiency in them. I did not include a userbox for Simple English because I have not had enough experience with it to give myself a rating.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with Wikipedia is in accord with your analysis. For me, it is not so much a matter of what is congenial (though MOS has not been congenial) as of what is feasible. There are inevitable limits to what can be achieved at the MOSpages, because there is no clear brief from the community that MOS is supposed to serve, and no centralised discussion that could steer us to such a goal. Not only do editors come in with varying competence and insight into their own competence (which we could cope with, as we do everywhere in the project), there are not sufficient boundaries within which to work, or to appeal to so that discussion will be orderly, productive, and enduringly consensual. (For a start, there is no system for establishing and recording well-founded consensus decisions.) These things matter more at MOS than elsewhere. And then, attempts to fix these higher-level problems, or even to raise them systematically, are greeted with suspicion and perhaps accusations of anti-Wikipedian motives. The wonder is this: we do have a pretty good set of guidelines at WP:MOS, unique on the Web as far I can determine. The worry is this: it cannot endure as a respected resource, or much improve, without a change of protocols. I'm pessimistic, so far.

As for the anarchy of English itself, that is more familiar and even more inevitable. Style guides proliferate despite it, or indeed because of it. The task such anarchy sets for all style guides is exciting and of great linguistic interest: psychological and sociological interest, also.

I do some translating from Romance languages (mainly French) into English. We could compare notes sometime if you like.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk regulars

Hello, Wavelength. I added your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. Happy Holidays! ---Sluzzelin talk 13:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r^c 07:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Wavelength, I want to thank you for your supportive discussion around 'limen'. As you can tell, I am not an experienced user, and have never entered into such a deep discussion around a very small point. While I was interested in pursing my point, I have no underlying motivation in this topic. I am very grateful for your support in sorting all this out. I have learnt much more than I expected. —F^red ¹1⁴ 07:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Referrence(?)

Thanks for referring the article translation request to the appropriate authority. I didn't know that type of service was offered on Wikipedia, therefore I would never have placed it there. I've been sporadically editing WP lately and haven't checked the page I originally posted on, so I wouldn't know what to do, sorry. My dearest thanks to you for what you have done for me and the public as a whole. Mattokunhayashi 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattokunhayashi (talk • contribs)

Collation at WT:MOS

Good to see that you have set things in motion at WT:MOS. Army makes some interesting points, but he is not right about the redirect from Thortharson being pointless. Even if it is a "mere" patronymic, most people don't know that: and many who read a full Icelandic name will search for it under the "surname", mistakenly or not. While native Icelandic alphabetisation is keyed to the first name, not the patronymic or matronymic, this does not necessarily mean that English-language practice must follow.

I did not know that Þ comes after Z in the native Icelandic version of the alphabet, as I now see that it does. But again, if the transliteration is with Th, then it should surely be sorted in a list as if spelt that way in a multilingual list. Compare indexes that mix Greek words with non-Greek: you will surely find Θαλῆς sorted between Thackeray and thaumaturgy rather than between Eric the Red and iatrogenic diseases!

There are genuine difficulties to be sorted out.

This Google book search on "Thórbergur" shows that it is usual in an international context to treat it as a normal given name: to shorten it to an initial, and to index by the "surname" rather than by "Thórbergur". See the treatment of "Thorvaldson, T", for example. This source is interesting; it does repeatedly refer to Þórbergur Þórðarson as "Þórðarson", even when the Icelandic spelling is retained. See, by the way, our article List of Icelanders for further possible leads.

See also our article Gunnar Gunnarsson, which regularly refers to its subject as "Gunnarsson"; other articles like Einar Benediktsson do not follow this practice (we have a note at the start about patronymics, telling us that the subject is to be referred to as "Einar"). Perhaps Gunnarsson is more internationalised and appropriated as a figure in world literature, and so subjected to the norms of international naming; or perhaps it's just the luck of the draw in Wikipedia articles. Britannica consistently indexes by the patronymic, by the way; and it refers to the subject by the patronymic.

As for Italian, sure: the conventions have to be worked out for that, too. They do seem to differ from those for French, and Spanish may be different again.

I can see we're going to have difficulties if I don't respond directly at WT:MOS; but I fear it must be that way for now.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I ask this question without sounding derisive? Are the difficulties which caused you to leave WT:MOS worse than the difficulties of this discussion there without your direct participation? I hope that you will change your decision, at least for discussing collation. In either case, you may be interested to know that I have invited comments from two groups of Wikipedians.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about how you sound; we have a good working relationship, and I for one will not be over-sensitive. Remember that it was you that started our conversation about collation. While I remain interested to pursue it, I will not waste time at MOS; nor will I endure any more the vapid deliverances of certain editors there, or the unwarranted abusiveness of some others. I have too much else to do; and as I have said before, it is sometimes good to get out of the way and let others deliberate.

That said, I think your efforts to be clear about these issues have not met with the same from other editors. A pity, because these matters are complex and call for careful, clear exposition. Already the waters are muddied, it seems to me. Too soon people lapse into jargon, and the conversation becomes cliquey and labyrinthine.

I have thought about this, and I can offer a solution: shift the whole thing to the talkpage for WP:LIST (which needs a shortcut: WT:LIST; surprising that so little about collation is apparent in WP:LIST, after so much discussion there!) or some other better-focused forum than WT:MOS. It is in lists and tables that collation is most salient as an issue, after all. If you do that, I will join in. But I will not engage with time-wasting or obscure process.

I value your work, and I don't want to see it wasted by the incompetence of others!

Note that I am away from my usual haunts for a few days, and may not contribute much till I return.

Meanwhile, it is good that you have invited comments form those two groups of specialists. Keep in mind, though, that there is a sharp divide between British and American practice, with ordering by first word first versus ordering by letters in the whole string without regard for divisions between words.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for offering that solution. I used two navigation templates, but when I open the second one, the text is too wide for the screen. Do you know how to fix that?

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I am not able to do much at WP until about 5 February, as it turns out.

I use Firefox, and only if I make the window very narrow do I have any problem with that second navbox. What browser do you use? Such a problem might be caused by those long unbroken strings, like the Google-books address given by Kmzundel at the end. Two solutions, in that case: 1) edit the markup so that the string itself is not what is shown; or 2) use the markup <small></small> around the offending strings (iterated as necessary).

Interesting that there has been no response to your posting. And there's half the problem! Sorting order appears to interest few editors, or to be too hard to come to terms with. If things continue like that, we will have grounds for taking the initiative or forcing the issue, perhaps drafting a guideline of our own devising and giving notice that we will include it if there are no reasoned objections. How do you feel about that? My difficulty with it is that you and I have not yet reached any agreement on what would be best. If we could somehow do that, then make an RFC, we might get some action. It shouldn't be just set aside. Too important.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried your second solution, I saw no difference. When I tried your first solution, with Kmzundel's comment after the template, the template had normal width even when opened, but his comment had extra width. Also, I noticed that his comment at WT:MOS has extra width, which I had not noticed before. I had first noticed the extra width of the template when I had decided to close it. After some reflection, I decided to leave the template as it is, and to refrain from publicizing my choice of web browser.

I am willing to take the initiative with you in drafting a guideline. We can let the discussion at WT:MOS lapse at the end of 10 days. I am unsure of how easy it will be for us to reach an agreement, but I am hoping for the best. If you are ready, please respond, below the second template, to elements in it, including, if possible, (1) links to archived discussions, (2) my Google search results, (3) my favored system, and (4) subsequent comments by other Wikipedians.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I changed points to elements. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Yes Wavelength, I will respond where you ask me to. I may not respond to all of the archived discussion nor to all of the Google search results, because that would be inefficient. I will respond to your own favoured system. All of this I'll do a couple of days from now. Myself, I want a system that is simple, practicable, easy to gain consensus for, and suited to English-language practice (with, for example, Þ treated as if it were Th – in ordering if not in transliterating, though I also strongly prefer doing that too).

I'm sorry that there is a problem with the navboxes. I don't see it, myself. Many elements of this sort are clunky at WP, but they remain useful.

More later. (I am still away from my major resources.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, I have not forgotten about any of this. Some more has been said at WT:MOS, though the discussion is slow and haphazard. I have approached one other editor to join in some concerted action, and I am waiting for a reply. Meanwhile, I watch developments with interest.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians have seen every possible system. The standard handbook. "A Manual of European languages for librarians", for Icelandic says. "In some lists every letter has a distinct place,....but often the accents are ignored, and d and ð are treated as one." In other words, there is in practice no standard. (Its pretty much them same in all accented languages--there are multiple standards, and the reader and searcher must be prepared to adapt. When librarians write their own, they at different times and places show an equal variety. Obviously, for a list we need a single one, and we could justify almost anything. DGG (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

Thanks, I'll see if I can get to that later today. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peak water

Wavelength, you wrote: "I have requested these articles (22:24, 16 October 2007)". I saw your earlier contribution. Thanks. Could you please review the article once more. It's much closer now to complete. Kgrr (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions also, and for visiting User:Wavelength/Articles requested.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization / collation

Thanks for drawing my attention to this discussion. Seems a useful and needed addition to WP:MOS. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 04:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your request to copy my comment but am not sure where exactly you want it -- the code there is kind of confusing to me (I'm not familiar with the expandable boxes and the border around some of the paras). Can you go ahead and copy it wherever it should go? --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 00:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyming pairs

Thanks again for the massive work you did in locating candidates, Wavelength. Do you still have it on your To Do list for a new article? I'll naturally defer to you if you plan on getting to it fairly soon, but if not, I've done some work on it and I could create a stub too. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, but it has never been on my list of things to do. Please go ahead with it if you want to start that article. If you want to prevent its deletion, I advise reading WP:BEEF. I anticipate that, after it has been started, it will receive contributions from Angr, Julia Rossi, Kwami, Noetica, and me.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this note in order to remind myself that the idea for this article sprang from the discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 13#Words with exactly one rhyme.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak French?

All the more reason to send readers to a more useful page! It was edited in late 2004/early 2005, about a half dozen times, then abandoned. We need more attention at the translation project that actually has participants. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of environmental topics

Thank you for your message. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization and collation

Hi Wavelength, Thanks for asking me to comment on the above Wikipedia Manual of Style talk page. My apologies that I'm just getting to it now - I've had a busy semester! Best, Walshga (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 107#Alphabetization and collation, with the instruction "Do not edit the contents of this page." The discussion is still open for comments at Wikipedia talk:Lists#Alphabetization and collation. Thank you for your interest. If you have comments to add, please put them at the very bottom of the section. Please do not edit the navigation templates. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The work on lists is important, and needs sustained discussion from interested editors.

Wavelength, thanks for your note at my talkpage. Please see my response there.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for the link regarding Chinese Romanization on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this kudos. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion

(Regarding [1] and [2]) As far as I recall, there is consensus that it is alright (even a good thing) to change generic ref desk headings ("Question 1", e.g.) to meaningful titles. I'm assuming you added a note in order to inform the original poster or anyone else who might be confused when searching for the original title. My suggestion is to leave the generic part and merely add the meaningful part. Example: "Question 2: Opposite of a word in context" or "Question 2 (Opposite of a word in context)". I've seen both. That way the original title even appears in the table of contents, and you don't have to add an explanation. Just my two cents. In any case, thanks for the helpful modifications. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recalling a consensus that it is all right to make those changes.

The information at the top of the page (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language) includes the following.

Include a meaningful title. Do not write "Question" or "Query", but write a few words that briefly tell the volunteers the subject of the question.

...

Don't edit others' comments, except to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability.

I interpreted readability to include informativeness in a heading.

I asked about such matters at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 17#Choosing e-mail subject lines and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 April 17#Choosing section headings on Wikipedia talk pages and on Wikipedia Reference Desk pages. In the first discussion, I was provided this link (Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox)), which I provided with the first change which you mentioned. At the bottom of that linked web page, under "Additional User Research and Design Guidelines", the fourth link is to First 2 Words: A Signal for the Scanning Eye (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox), which has a link to F-Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox). On the language reference desk, the F-shaped pattern would be less effective with a heading which retains the word "Question". I removed the word "Question" because I understood it to be lacking in informativeness. Also, it does not stand out from similar headings. In the second discussion which I cited from the Archives, the last message (by User:JackofOz) says: "if the OP just writes 'Question' (which happens all too often), there should be carte blanche for any other editor to convert it into something meaningful."

[By the way, the heading of this discussion could be changed from "Just a suggestion" to something more informative, such as "Changing headings: a better way (just a suggestion)".] -- Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, you crack me up :) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens

Nicely-done. A greatly-needed campaign. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment (--> "Nicely done. A greatly needed campaign."). Readers of your message [3] should be aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 4. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC) to 06:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC), I visited articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles, searching for the character string ly- and removing incorrectly placed hyphens. I checked 12 categories in the following order, and recorded the names of the following articles, which still need attention because of certain complications.

FA Biology: Amanita phalloides; Blue Whale; Daspletosaurus; Dinosaur; Edmontosaurus; Gorgosaurus; Hawksbill turtle; History of biology; Iguanodon; Ring-tailed Lemur; Sea otter

FA Education: ---

FA Geography and places: Blyth, Northumberland; Bratislava; Death Valley National Park; Hamersley, Western Australia; Providence, Rhode Island; Sale, Greater Manchester; Waterfall Gully, South Australia

FA Geology, geophysics and meteorology: ---

FA Health and medicine: Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa

FA Language and linguistics: ---

FA Mathematics: ---

FA Chemistry and mineralogy: ---

FA Computing: Delrina

FA Engineering and technology: Shuttle-Mir Program

FA Food and drink: ---

FA Physics and astronomy: Johannes Kepler; Pluto

Here is a permanent link to an old revision of Wikipedia:Featured articles, as edited at 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

During this two-day period, the Main Page was displaying a banner thanking contributors for over 2500 featured articles.

-- Wavelength (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your recent help with the list of skin-related conditions‎. Much appreciated! ---kilbad (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you have a moment, could I get some overall feedback from you regarding the list? I am working to make it feature status someday and would appreciate your review. Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia! ---20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing hyphens from Wikipedia namespace

I have begun systematically searching through the project pages in the Wikipedia namespace and removing incorrectly used hyphens. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 4.) Whenever I was unable to edit a project page, I left a comment on the discussion page. I have completed this procedure for all unredirected pages beginning with a non-alphanumeric character or a digit, Including pages indexed before Roman letters and those indexed after Roman letters. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice; wish more people were MoSgnoming like this. Tony (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS matters

Dear Wavelength,

Thank you so much for your patient posting at my talkpage in recent weeks. I have been pleased to receive all that you have written, and felt some guilt for not responding. But I have done little at Wikipedia in the last few months [as you can see], except have my say on a couple of important political fronts, intervene to rescue Diatonic and chromatic (which stands in need of WPification, but not of incompetent piecemeal meddling), and address a couple of quotidiana. I would like to take up some of the matters you raise at my talkpage, but not just yet.

I write now because I am both delighted and dismayed to see your latest contribution at WT:MOS. Let's start with the delight. I agree with you entirely on the distinction between form and function, and am irradiated with noetic pleasure to see the matter so well put in the case of the period (or full stop). "M'illumino d'immenso" as Ungaretti has it: or perhaps in this case "M'illumino d'impegno". Yes, I agree entirely on the general point, and want to participate in working out its consequences. I have had essentially the same idea for the last couple of years, about several matters of punctuation. But I have never yet thought the time right (see how we segue into dismay?) to throw it into the mix at WT:MOS. Too fine a pearl.

I have kept away from all MOS activity for just short of six months. The self-exile is almost over; I have been waiting only for the ArbCom delinking case to come to its end, and its sanctions against certain editors to be in effect. But I do not want to discuss here my thoughts about that case or MOS. I have invited you to email me, and I am still hoping that you will decide to do so, at this crucial stage for the development of WP's style guidelines, which are by far the most influential on the web. I also have in mind an experimental collaboration that goes beyond Wikipedia; but I cannot discuss it with you here either.

Meanwhile, I offer a response concerning your latest MOS submission. I don't mind if you quote me at WT:MOS.

Period starts as a word indicating function, just as full stop does. As OED points out, the primary senses of period (before we get to analysis of text) concern first a duration (" I. A course or extent of time") and then, derivatively, its termination ("II. Completion, end of any course"). And so in the analysis of text. First, the sentence considered as stretched out in time:

10. a. A complete sentence. (Cf. Aristotle Rhet. iii. ix.) Usually applied to a sentence consisting of several clauses, grammatically connected, and rhetorically constructed. Hence, in pl., rhetorical or grammatical language.

And then, derivatively, the termination of the sentence:

11. a. A full pause such as is properly made at the end of a sentence.

Both of these senses are current, though recherché. The second leads immediately to the most common meaning in analysis of text:

b. The point or character that marks the end of a complete sentence; a full stop (.). Also added to a statement to emphasize a place where there is or should be a full stop, freq. (colloq.) with the implication 'and that is all there is to say about it', 'and it is as simple as that'.

(There. With anyone other than you, Wavelength, I would have felt impelled to show the etymology of period within Greek also; but you have it at your fingertips already, I think.)

A similar history could be given for comma (OED: "1. In Greek Rhet. and Prosody: A phrase or group of words less than a colon (q.v.). Hence, †A short member of a sentence or period"), and colon ("∥1. In Gr. Rhetoric and Prosody, a member or section of a sentence or rhythmical period; hence in Palaeography, a clause or group of clauses written as a line, or taken as a standard of measure in ancient MSS. or texts. pl. cola").

Four factors might bear on one's perception of period as more to do with typographical form, and full stop as more to do with textual function:

The functional character of full stop is more perspicuous because of the primary meanings of its component English words.
Full stop is more obviously compound than period, which invites analysis of its prior meanings. Period is compound also, but this is masked for English readers.
Analysis of full stop reveals less multivalence (or polysemy) than analysis of period does.
Our cultural and idiosyncratic predispositions might incline us to find full stop more functional, or alternatively as more purely denominative.

Similar analysis of function and form is interesting in the case of ellipsis, parentheses (cf. the arguably less functional and more formal brackets), and so on. (Note especially the formal inverted comma, in British usage traditionally preferred to the functional characterisation quotation mark. This is the reverse of the way with full stop and period, if we take the British full stop as more functional than period is.)

In the light of all this, I cannot agree that period is the "natural" term for the dot on the page or screen, and full stop for one of the functions served by such a dot. Even if the case were compelling in the abstract, it would not be in practice. Consensus would be unlikely. Many do in fact call the elements in an ellipsis mark, or in a longer string forming a veritable line, "full stops"; and they have almost as good reason to do so as those who call them "periods". Alternative formal terms are available: for example, I myself like dot; and stop has been used, as attenuating the semantic force of full stop. There is a lot to be said also for point, or full point, both of which have support from authorities in print.

This is emphatically not to diminish the importance of the distinction we both want to make between form and function. It is to extend that distinction, and to exhibit the complexity and (I hope) the utility of applying it. I would willingly discuss with you how I see the distinction playing out more generally; but I will not do so here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive85 etc.

Instead of creating hundreds of useless talk pages, please consider fixing the errors yourself. Nobody will see the pages you are creating. Nakon 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the understanding that one should not edit another person's comments. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]