User talk:Apteva

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Incivility now?

In your withdrawal of AE complaint, you seem to have added a charge of incivility against me. What's that about? Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Touchy? I was saying the climate there is incivil and that your action was inappropriate. Those are two different things. Apteva (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. No, I don't. Whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, you are officially hereby warned to yourself heed the arbcom advice that you've been throwing around: "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus." You have brought personalized charges against Noetica, Neotarf, JHunterJ, and myself, for trying to restrain your outrageous behavior on WT:MOS. Cool your jets, man. If you continue to swear to fix "errors" that you see because your personal opinions differ from the advice of the MOS, particularly on things like the en dash in Mexican–American War, you are threatening to re-open a deep and painful wound that took many editors many months to patch up. Nobody is going to welcome that attitude or behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted. In filing the complaint the first thing it says is are you sure that you are not more guilty then they are? Or words to that effect. But like I said, sorry to pop anyone's balloon but clearly the Mexican American War punctuation was a well meant but erroneous "decision", and the sooner everyone recognizes that the better. An example in the US courts was the Dred Scott decision, which said that Blacks were not people. The most important thing to recognize is that mistakes are made. Fix them and move on. Holding on to an untenable position like Dred Scott or using an endash is really questionable. I am still waiting for anyone to find even one proper name that legitimately does use an endash. But by all means this is not the only error that can be found in WP. I am guessing that there might be others. Actually I know there are others. But think about it, all we are as editors is 3,000 busy scribes copying down the world the best we can. About 700 of us have earned the respect to be given some extra tools (the admins). What do we know about what is right or wrong? Is if verifiable? Is it supported by a reliable source? Let me emphasize part of that quote, "and to work collegially towards a workable consensus". What we have now is neither a consensus nor workable. Apteva (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion of this so-called "error" in 2011, with many wikipedians participating. We worked it out. If you're so sure it's an error, how do you explain the books and articles that make the same error, like this book or this article? If your theory has any legs at all, show us a source that uses an en dash in "core–periphery tension" or "core–periphery relations" or something like that (like the book I just linked), but not in proper names such as Mexican–American War. I don't think you'll find any; I could not. If you can't even ante up something worth paying attention to, why do you think you have standing to re-open or overturn such a complex and widely discussed consensus? Dicklyon (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see that an extreme minority have taken that view. That is not what we do, we pick the majority view. In the case of comets it is odd that most of the publications that choose to ignore lower case also choose to ignore the hyphen. Maybe it is because they are choosing to ignore the lower case that they also choose to ignore the hyphen. But the vast majority of google scholar results choose what our article chose - lower case comet and a hyphen, and for consistency that is what our MOS should use - lower case comet and a hyphen. But lower case is not actually as common as upper case when you throw in books - and the comet people tend to want to use upper case, so you end up with Comet and a hyphen. But our example should follow what the article uses, otherwise we are not being consistent, and how ironic is it for a guideline that is written to help bring about consistency fails to be consistent itself?

Just because you can find a few examples does not mean that is the most common usage. That is the point that I have seen you avoiding. When I see you participating in RM discussions your modus operandi appears to be to look for a few exceptions and introduce them and fail to point out "out of how many" or bring up the examples to the contrary that you certainly also could have. What is the most common usage? That is the question we are trying to answer. Find me one proper noun that in its most common usage uses an endash. I would have thought someone would have been able to find one by now, but no one has. Apteva (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Inapt comparisons

Please stop comparing fixing alleged errors in the manual of style to overturning "the Dred Scott decision" or "Rosa Parks taking an available seat in the front of the bus." While I understand you think the punctuation-style issues you have focused on are important, they cannot remotely be compared in importance to the moral, legal, and historical events you describe.

In dealing with the Manual of Style, as with all things in life, a sense of proportionality is appropriate. Using these inapt comparisons makes you come off as grandiose and faintly ridiculous. That is is contrary to your goal of having other editors focus on the merits of your arguments. Using these comparisons is also likely sooner or later to start offending people, which is equally counterproductive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Point taken. Apteva (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen and such

Thank you for your support on Talk:Paris-Orly Airport#Requested move. I agree with you that many of our airport articles have spurious hyphens. And a few have spurious en dashes, too, thanks largely to the action of User:DASHBot. But the way to fix them is to look at them individually, and try to figure out what is the intended relationship between the words, and then use the best punctuation, styling, or title choice to make it better. Your allergic aversion to en dashes is just making it harder to make progress on that. And asking that every styling improvement that affects a title be considered controversial and go through RM is way too extreme, too. I have done many hundreds of changes to styles that affected hyphens and/or dashes in titles, and in better than 95% of cases, nobody ever reacts at all. Most users are not bothered by moving the project toward compliance with the suggestions of the MOS. You and Born2cycle and few others are exceptions, and pushing way beyond the point where it's clear that you have no support is just disruptive. Thanks for toning it down on the MOS talk page, but now why not tone it down on hounding my work, too? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically it is odd that we would disagree on anything. Both of us have an identical background and identical intelligence. Given the same information I would expect both of us to come to the same conclusion. My recollection, though, is that I learned the clue-by-four way with one block, and evidently it took seven blocks in your case. My advice to you as an editor is to be very careful to avoid disrupting WP to make a point. As to airport names, I have looked at a thousand of them (4 thousand actually, but who is counting) and found none that used an endash. I agree completely that every name needs to be examined on a one by one case, and turning a bot loose on them was questionable at the best.

Here is my recommendation on endashes. Do not ruffle feathers. If an article consistently uses hyphens where endashes clearly should be used, ask on that talk page first. If an article already uses 80% endashes obviously just fix the rest. But stick to places where it is uncontroversial to use endashes. That means no changes from hyphen to endash in comets, airports, birds, etc. That means feel free to change any endashes that are found in any of those - but not without discussion at the project page first. I think it is great for WP to be hyper professional looking and use endashes where they should be used (but not necessarily in titles)*, such as where a majority of books published would use an endash. And no way no how use an endash where only a minority of books would use an endash. We try to present information in a manner that most people would expect. We do not try to use better standards, we do not try to look better, we do not try to fix historical errors. We report history, we do not try to make history. If someone becomes a little smarter by learning something from WP that is great - but everything they learn we need to have put there because it is verifiable somewhere else.

As to most people not reacting, I would estimate that 99% of editors have no clue what the difference is between a hyphen, minus sign, endash or an emdash, so I am not surprised that few people have complained. I really object to being typified as being disruptive though, because I am very careful about adhering completely to WP standards and guidelines - and changing those guidelines when they do not make any sense.

Airport names clearly do not use "intended relationship between the words" in deciding punctuation. They use whatever punctuation people who name the airport use, and whatever punctuation people who write down the airport use. WP does not make up punctuation for proper names from the "intended relationship between the words". We do do that for common names and when writing text within an article. But a name is a name, and whatever people use is that name. If Julia Louis-Dreyfus decided to spell her name with an emdash, that would be her name. Would anyone spell it that way? Not likely, so we would have a choice, the official name or the common name. In the case of Mexican American War, a very small number of editors decided to ignore the common name, and obviously there is no official name. Why should 500 million readers of WP and 3,000 active and a million occasional editors of WP have to follow that really bizarre recommendation that flies in the face of all of WP policies and principles?

Obviously I was not aware of the discussion while it was going on, and I really can think of things I would rather spend my time on than finding out who said what and when, but it to me is just such a strange position that it is completely discountable.

* I am putting an asterisk here because in 2007 the prevailing mood was to prohibit endashes and emdashes from titles, and I am not sure that deviating from that is such a good idea. I would lean towards using endashes in text but not in titles. If someone types in Germany (1911-14) they are 99% going to use a hyphen because even if they have an endash on the keyboard few know enough to use it, and so it is going to go through a redirect, which would be avoided by using a hyphen. The difference, of course is about three pixels. Apteva (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As to our "identical background and identical intelligence", I take no position, since I don't know who you are, and since I never invoke background or intelligence in WP disputes. As to your being disruptive, I think the data show otherwise. Sustaining an average of 6 edits per day on an important talk page, more than double the rate of anyone else there, for four weeks, can't be anything but. With no support for your theory, you vow to press on until you win. That's disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in this case. Disruptive was spending a couple of years arguing to use an endash in Mexican American War. Hugely disruptive.

Neither background nor intelligence are a requisite for editing and constructively contributing to WP content. We have editors with an IQ of 80 (and below) and ones with an IQ of 120 (and above). We have third graders and probably some with multiple post doctorates. All are both welcome and needed to make WP a success. All of us are able to collaboratively create something that none of us individually could possibly create. Some of us have the time and the energy to post six times a day for a year. Some only post once in six years. All are welcome and needed. None of our pages are more important than any of the other pages though. All of our pages are important. We deep six the ones that are not important. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it about time to review your count, and change to support, at Talk:Richmond_–_San_Rafael_Bridge#Requested_move, to dispel the impression of just being an anti-en-dash–anti-MOS troll? Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Review my count? Just because "5 of the first 10 books"? After the first ten I was about to do that, but said, well lets push through and see what the answer really is, and checked only previews, I never used OCR once in that count. And after you get through the first 20 the 5 out of 10 starts slipping, and finally ends up at 25.7% - for books. For newspapers an endash is no where to be seen - although one does use an emdash. So clearly the vote of everyone should be for Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, with a hyphen. But at 5 out of 10 I would not have said that was conclusive - it was an indicator that either could be used, and that a tie breaker needed to be found somewhere else. Newspapers conclusively answered that question. I do not have a copy of the AP style guide, but it is so overwhelming that that particular bridge could even be included as an example. We do not use the MOS to determine names of proper names. We only use the MOS to determine titles that we make up. Apteva (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And even that is probably not a true statement - because only TITLE determines titles - we just happen to use the same conventions that the MOS uses - sometimes. Apteva (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Only TITLE determines titles" is the signature of an anti-MOS troll, claiming that the MOS should be ignored when styling title text. If you want to survey the decisions make in reliable sources about whether an en dash is appropriate, it makes sense to do that in the context of sources that have en dash among their style choices, as I've pointed out before; that leaves out newspapers, and many books. You can't claim that someone has decided hyphen is better than en dash if that someone doesn't have en dash as an available option. In WP, we do have that option, so we need to make the call; that's what MOS helps with. As for the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge, that's not an official name as you seem to think, but a name made up as a description based on the symmetrically-connected two places. Like a Seattle–Tokyo flight, or the Hartsfield–Jackson Airport, a perfect place to prefer an en dash. Your unreasoned rejection of such uses makes you appear an anti-en-dash troll, like Born2cycle and PMAnderson. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since when do newspapers not use endash? They are typeset just like books and can use any font or character they want. They choose a uniform font, but to my knowledge do not avoid using an endash. I see the NY Times uses endashes for minus signs and emdashes for endashes "earnings growth — information that". In the two instances I found in the LA Times, they used -- two hyphens, to represent an endash in one place and a real endash in the other. I did not spend a long time looking. Calling someone anti MOS is counter productive. I use the MOS just the same as everyone else. Yes, the bridge has an official name, and Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is not it, but it also has a common name, that a majority of sources uses, and as far as I can tell, it is just that, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, with a hyphen. Yes there are some books that were obviously written with a typewriter, but if they wanted an endash they could have used --, two hyphens. FYI, Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is the official name. I researched that one and tracked down the actual city ordinance that gave it that name. The funny part is the ordinance says the purpose of the ordinance is to change the name to Hartsfield - Jackson International Airport (space hyphen space, which is what the FAA uses) and ends with therefore the name is hereby "Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport", without the spaces and with Jackson bolded. Obviously no one uses it that way. A year later a second ordinance was passed changing what the city calls the airport in the city code, but that did not change the name of the airport, and that ordinance consistently used an unspaced hyphen, with no bolding. Believe me I am as far from a troll as you can get - I simply want WP to be the best it can be - nothing less. The metric I use is how well respected is WP? Are schools allowed to use WP as a reference? They certainly can use Britannica. If they can not use WP, we have a very serious problem, and not one that throwing in a few endashes is going to fix - especially when we throw them in where they do not belong. Apteva (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If newspapers use an en dash it's typically to stand for an em dash, since it's tighter. This book notes that "The en dash is less common and it's nonexistent in most newspaper styles." And this one says "What's more, en dashes don't exist at all in the newspaper world." But believe what you want; I'm sure there are exceptions. As for turning WP into a reference source, I think that's an unreasonable goal; but let me know how you think it can be pulled off. As for the name of the Atlanta airport, it's clear from the doc you quoted that the typography was not a part of that, is it not? They hadn't even settle on what typography to use in the name-changing document, so they clearly didn't see that as part of the name. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

As for "earnings growth — information that", the NYT seems to have revised that story, so I can't verify. It's not clear where it originated, or whether they would use such characters in print. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they changed it to a comma. Here is a spaced emdash: " in the division — which excludes cash and discontinued operations — was $425 billion"[1] Hmm "you've reached your limit of 10 free articles this month". Maybe WP should start charging for viewing articles. Here is another spaced emdash for a spaced endash on the main page[2]

"Who Gets Credit for the Recovery? By DAVID LEONHARDT 5:45 PM ET

The odds that an economic recovery has finally begun have never been higher — adding to the election’s stakes."

No comment on Atlanta, other than I do think they meant a hyphen, and the FAA may have read the first part of the ordinance and not gotten down to the end. I think I would trust a sample of stories over a book that flat out says that they are not used when they clearly are, and the opposite is what I found for the NY Times - an endash instead of a minus sign, and an emdash instead of an endash. And it was a spaced emdash no less. I tend to like the motto of Missouri - show me. Did you notice that both of those books are by the same author? How to make WP better? How about using hyphens where hyphens should be used, like in Mexican-American War? Apteva (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting about the two books by same author. Here is a book that says the opposite; but your counts pretty well prove it wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Because they called 1/3 seldom? It does seem that it is the author that thought that it was or was not used - one thought it was not and put it into two books, one more strongly than the other, they also wrote a third book, and the second author thought it was seldom used, even though in one sample it was used 1/3 of the time. Out of all the millions of publications though, it is pretty hard to draw conclusions - but easy to disprove is someone says "always" or "never". Apteva (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WTF are you thinking here? Isn't the cause of these disruptive "problems" under your immediate control? Just stop being a cowboy. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I fix what I can. The "disruption" is not caused by me, but by the decision to use endashes where hyphens should be used. That is the problem that needs to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)