User talk:Ch Th Jo/Archive 2

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to USNS Assertive (T-AGOS-9), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: USNS Assertive (T-AGOS-9) was changed by Ch Th Jo (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-03-01T02:22:58+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Natalia Vodianova

Hi. Please excuse my curt edit summary when undoing your recent edit to Natalia Vodianova. Spelling wasn't the only reason, but the earliest revision of the article used British spelling, and it seems more appropriate for this particular subject anyway (being a European model resident in the UK). See WP:ENGVAR. The preference of "the largest english language audience" isn't a factor. Similarly, in the infobox, EU measurements should take precedence over US ones.

Also, your citation style unnecessarily duplicates information; it is not necessary to have both work and publisher. There's some discussion of this at Template_talk:Cite_web#Work_and_publisher.

Please respond here or at my talk page, whichever you prefer. Thanks. :) –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with you regarding your citations in principle; I'm aware of the distinction between "work" and "publisher". However, anything entered as the "work" parameter in cite web is automatically italicised, yet the Manual of Style prescribes italicisation for "newspapers, journals, and magazines" but not for websites. With that in mind, and because it's not necessary to have both work and publisher specified in most cases, the "publisher" parameter is often used for the name of the source, for formatting purposes. That was part of the discussion at the cite web template talk page I linked to. However, that's an aspect of the template so it might not really be worth debating with regard to a particular article. (Also, it can worked around using CSS, and I may do that later.) That aside though, there are instances (such as where you've put "Naked Heart Foundation website" as the work) where having both seems superfluous. Compare to the NFL and International Narcotics Control Board examples at Template:Cite web/doc: the "work" parameter is left empty, no "National Football League website" or "NFL.com" etc.

Regarding the choice between, say, "Vogue (UK) website" or "Vogue.co.uk" or various similar permutations, I'd say it doesn't really matter which of those you choose as it conveys the same information; I suppose the former is probably preferable seeing as the domain name doesn't necessarily describe what the site is in any way. In the case of Forbes.com, I'd leave the "work" parameter empty, as the "Forbes.com LLC" pretty much sums it up.

Incidentally, regarding the date format used in citations, it's not something I feel too strongly about, but I feel that YYYY-MM-DD, even though it's an ISO standard, just looks plain ugly, especially when several dates appear in close proximity to each other as they do in the references section. As I say though, no strong preference there either way, so I don't mind leaving that as is.

That leaves the European/US sizes and metric/imperial units issue. Obviously Wikipedia articles aren't written for the subject, but in cases where there are regional differences, I would argue in favour of giving precedence to the region with which the subject is most closely associated.

I'll edit now to change back the spelling and a couple of (I hope) uncontroversial things. I hope I can convince you regarding the order of European/US sizes as well. Thanks for the dialogue. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Komatsu 930E

Hi Ch Th Jo - you gave an edit summary to the Komatsu 930E article that the 960E section was moved to the new article on the Komatsu 960E-1 but the new article dose not appear to contain the info or make reference back to superseding the 960E model ? And yet you redirected Komatsu 960E to the new article which does not appear make clear the distinction/relation ship between the two models or have i missed it someware ?

- BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)