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 6,823,648 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:

---

Category:Slow movement

At the present time, Category:Slow movement includes the following 13 articles.

• Slow Movement (version of 16:49, 17 September 2012)
• Slow cinema (version of 11:50, 10 June 2012)
• Slow design (version of 16:52, 2 July 2012)
• Slow Food (version of 15:42, 6 September 2012)
• Slow Food Nation (version of 02:50, 3 October 2012)
• Slow gardening (version of 23:42, 22 August 2012)
• Slow living (version of 06:20, 17 August 2012)
• Slow marketing (version of 10:36, 14 February 2011)
• Slow Money (version of 20:07, 8 October 2012)
• Slow parenting (version of 23:13, 7 October 2012)
• Slow programming (version of 13:24, 6 April 2012)
• Slow reading (version of 01:07, 15 January 2012)
• Slow Science (version of 07:46, 15 April 2012)

There is variation in regard to capitalization of the titles of the articles, and capitalization of the names of some headings in the articles. Also, the category page itself, Category:Slow movement (version of 15:55, 5 July 2012), has the following statement, in which the linked term is redirected to "Slow movement".

• The Slow Movement is a cultural shift towards slowing down the pace of life in modern-day society.

What, if anything, should be done about the letter case of the word following "Slow" in each of those instances, in the interests of consistency, accepted practice, and Wikipedia guidelines? (I am not in a hurry for an answer.)
—Wavelength (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

After a survey of the listings, and one or two of the articles, I am at least as concerned about the case of words that follow "slow". The article Slow Movement itself? I think it should be "Slow" movement; and then, should the term in running text be the same but with no caps at all? I would be prepared to accept "Slow" capitalised, with the precedent of Occupy movement ("Occupy" is capped within the article). Earlier I had wanted to retain quotation marks for that article, but I have changed my mind now that "Occupy movement" has very wide currency. Not so, I think, for the ill-defined "Slow" movement.

The capitalisation is not sufficient to make a good distinction from "slow movement" in the area of musical form, and I would certainly argue for the musical topic as primary, and of perennial interest. But I find to my surprise that there is no such musical article!

It is too time-consuming to campaign in such areas. But I will consider any request to assist.

Noetica^Tea? 04:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. After reading it, I was almost ready to move "Slow Movement" to ""Slow" movement", but I looked at the section headings in that article, with their variation in letter case, and I do not know what to do about the other expressions (in that article and the others) that use the word "Slow" or "slow". I considered your time limitations and your possible desire to clear your talk page of discussions for the new year, and I decided to leave those articles unchanged for now.

"Adagio (music)" and "Andante (music)" are redirected to "Tempo#Italian tempo markings".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian English: "nee" and "née"

You may wish to comment at User talk:Chris the speller#en-au use of nee vs née (version of 09:31, 20 December 2012) or at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#en-au use of nee vs née (version of 12:13, 20 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC) and 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added my sharp comments here, and here. Noetica^Tea? 03:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Your first link (to the second page I mentioned), as used here and at User talk:Chris the speller, is a link to the page history of Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. There is a follow-up question by User:Paul foord at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. No harm though. And now that history link shows another post of mine, in response to Paul.

Noetica^Tea? 00:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

[Pro forma note to self:]

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New copy-editors; WP:COPYEDIT

New copy-editors and a revision of Wikipedia:Basic copyediting (WP:COPYEDIT) are mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#Heads up: some newbies coming your way, hopefully (version of 19:03, 27 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC) and 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have now copyedited Wikipedia:GettingStarted (see my diff). Such poor writing!

Noetica^Tea? 03:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Extra punctuation marks

This may interest you. Perhaps the extra symbols are more practical than those in the book On Beyond Zebra! by Dr. Seuss.

• Metapunctuation: When a Comma Isn't Enough: Lewis B. Frumkes: 9780595002429: Amazon.com: Books
  

—Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I mainly buy serious works on real punctuation, but I have just ordered this one for my collection because I found it for just $A14 including delivery, on eBay. It can't do any harm; and there might be some incidental theoretical remarks that are worthwhile.

Noetica^Tea? 03:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sentence first (blog)

From my watchlist, I followed this revision linking to this discussion (version of 23:57, 31 December 2012) to this revision linking to this user page (version of 02:00, 29 December 2012), where the second external link in the first sentence is to this page, for which the main page is Sentence first ("An Irishman's blog about the English language").
—Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. I went straight to the blog entry itself, and I found myself broadly agreeing with the line taken there. A bit wordy! I often have to fix however and its allies when I edit: sometimes moving it, sometimes altering the punctuation, sometimes substituting an alternative.

I see from the other links you provide that her perceptions of ill-considered admin actions have led SandyGeorgia to retire from Wikipedia. I fully understand her frustration at a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Incompetent, trigger-happy, and often juvenile admins. I hope she changes her mind; but I would understand if she did not. I will post at her talkpage soon.

Noetica^Tea? 03:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Noetica. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 06:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guerillero | My Talk 06:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Focus on content

At WP:Title (talk pages and their associated article pages are synonymous), you wrote:

Apteva, the word "point" is not by itself of interest. The mere fact that Dicklyon happened to use it does not show WP:POINTiness. The inclusion was not with you in mind personally; but it has the great benefit of illustrating how things work consensually on Wikipedia, as opposed to a view you hold that has been set aside as non-consensual.

It so happens that yes, you sought to have the article Comet Hale–Bopp moved; and consensus was against that move. It so happened that yes, you have tried at many forums, many times, to bend policy and guidelines your way; but consensus is revealed as contrary to that way.

Per WP:FOC, it is inappropriate to focus on an editor, or even to answer an editor, by saying "XYZ, the word". It is not appropriate to say "that ABC happened to use"

What is appropriate is to say "The word "point".

Directing conversation to one particular editor is never appropriate on a policy, guideline, project or article talk page. It is appropriate only on that editors talk page. It is appropriate at an ANI about that editor, but only about that editor. I know that we have a popular concept of boomerang, but doing so is a violation of FOC - instead a separate AN/I needs to be opened.

What is appropriate is to say "that was used".

What is appropriate is to say "I did not see this as WP:POINTiness.

It is not appropriate to say "The inclusion was not with you in mind personally"

What is appropriate is to say "The inclusion may not have been with any one editor in mind" (unless you are a sock of the other editor involved it is impossible for you to know what they were thinking when it was added as an example).

The following, though, is appropriate:

Good guidelines and good policy do not shy away from ruling on cases that have been controversial but are now settled. Such settled precedents and decisions are exactly what editors look for in policy and guidelines.

Move on?

Noetica^Tea? 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:FOC and focus on content not on the user. This has nothing to do with user A, B, C, or D, and it is improper to have a conversation, like "Yes A, I agree, or no B I think". Say I think, not you said. While it is common to say oppose/support per A, B, that vote is an echo vote and does not count for much, but theoretically saying per A, B too is a violation of WP:FOC, but "per reasons given" is not.

But no, hyphens and dashes are not "settled". Someone, whose username starts with an N and ends with a vowel, ignored the well founded opposition and lack of consensus to apply dash rules to proper nouns, and did it anyway. By the way, we do have stewards on wikipedia, but they do not steward, so using steward is not appropriate unless someone is actually talking about the stewards. And for another thing, your habit of edit warring immediately is completely inappropriate. We have a WP:BRD cycle that we use. After B comes R, which happened after an editor boldly (that is the B) placed comet Hale-Bopp as an example and it was reverted (that is the R). Then both you and another editor violated BRD by following R with a second R. After the R comes D - for discussion - always, always, always. Plus this is a policy page, and as it says at the top of the talk page "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic." Editing policy pages is very different from editing guidelines, because they reflect a wider consensus, and carry a stricter mandate (although by the way none of the examples used in a policy carry any mandate whatsoever, which is the false assumption that was used in adding comet Hale-Bopp, to try to pretend that it being in a policy could be used as an argument that it was spelled correctly with a hyphen or a dash). On the other hand, the principles followed in editing policy pages are well advised for editing guidelines and essays as well. Apteva (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Per this post:

(one particular editor):

1. There is no lack of accord between the two long-established pages WP:MOS and WP:TITLE. Each has its role on Wikipedia. A small minority does not like this. You speak pejoratively of "some arcane MOS guidance"; but it is all derived consensually – arguably far more consensually than certain tight and untested algorithms that have been promoted and included in WP:TITLE.

Is this a private conversation with another editor? If so it belongs on their talk page. Is this something written by a particular editor? If so naming them is not appropriate. And seriously, asking editors to post at the end? Not reasonable. This is a talk page, not an essay. Putting replies next to what they are replying to is more readable. Apteva (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the vintage Apteva tirade. I was feeling neglected! But seriously, now that you are topic-banned through action at WP:ANI (following the overwhelming community consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva), I hope and expect that you will moderate your behaviour. If you are so prolifically mixed up in an issue that you become almost identified with the content, expect that people will find it hard to "focus on content". Very difficult, with you at centre-screen. See my similar remarks to Born2cycle, below. He was warned at ArbCom for being so "assertive". Let's all learn from our mistakes, and work more collegially.

Please stay away from here now, unless you have some new and particular matter to address. Tersely.

Noetica^Tea? 00:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that note, and I regret that I did not reply earlier.
☺ Noetica^Tea? 00:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Apteva issue

Hello, Noetica. I would suggest you take a look at this conversation I held recently with Apteva. Through it, I've come to the conclusion that he may indeed be willing to consider distancing himself from the dash area for a time; I think this is a perfectly fair way to end the dispute. Notwithstanding the issues in which Apteva has been involved, I really do think he's a reasonable and well-intentioned editor who is just in the minority of a MoS-related dispute. Harmonizing relations between the minority and the majority, which has attained the consensus, appears to be the logical next step in this process. Best, dci | TALK 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re hat note - thanks for that, I'll make sure to in future if I do again. (A rarity.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

Hi, Noetica! I've seen your name a lot at RM discussions lately. :) I saw your comment regarding Dazed and Confused and responded to it. Would like to hear from you! Direct link here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Erik, see more recent RMs in which I have commented also. It's damn hard work! I used to do that a lot, but found it to be a waste of time. I will probably retire from it again, unless we can achieve reforms.

Thanks for coming here. Stay for a cup of tea next time? We can talk through some of the issues. But just now I have way too much to do in real life, and of course in the very important RFC at WT:TITLE (which promises to rationalise a great number of RMs).

Noetica^Tea? 00:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Relisting

Two things per this diff.[1] First, only the closer relists a discussion, not participants in the discussion ("the closer may choose to re-list the request"). Second, no reason for the relisting is ever given. There are more instructions about this in the closing instructions. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, instead of playing every wikilawyering avenue one could come up with—regardless of hair's breadth validity or invalidity—wouldn't it be better for you and everyone else to take a more collaborative stance? Your contributions on certain topics are much valued, and I think the community would be most grateful if you expanded on these rather than pushing up against a brick wall (I don't imagine it's very satisfying for you, the current imbroglio; more like a drag). The community has decided that it's disruptive, and may I say that continuing down this avenue is the very opposite of the roles that would give you the intellectual and social recognition we all wish for. Tony (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. There is in fact no provision against relisting by an involved editor. Often it is plainly warranted by continuing discussion. See this at WT:RM. Noetica^Tea? 00:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That thread was a complaint about it not being clear enough that no one involved should be relisting, and concluded that no further clarification was needed. But the main thing to understand is that relisting does nothing other than move the location of the listing. It does not keep it from being closed, because listings can be closed no matter where they appear. If fact none are indented to reach the backlog section, which is not a make a decision here section, but a catch all for discussion that have been around for longer than a week. Relisting is discussed in detail for the closers, and is an action that is taken by whoever is closing the discussion to say they looked at it and decided to kick the can down the road just to clear out the backlog section and nothing else. If someone involved relists it, that is completely pointless. Apteva (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the whole text of the closing instructions that is relevant to relisting (my underlining):

If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, you may elect to re-list the discussion, though it is entirely optional and up to the closer. Relisting simply consists of stating Relisted. ~~~~ before the initial requester's first timestamp (see this diff for an example). This gives the request a new timestamp which RMCD bot will use as the date to relist the entry on the requested moves project page. This can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically.
If the discussion has become stale, or seems that it would benefit from the input of more editors, some editors will notify at least one relevant WikiProject of the discussion, in addition to (or instead of) relisting it. The template {{RM notification}} could be useful for this. These WikiProjects can often be found by means of the banners placed at the top of many articles' talk pages.

As I note above, there has been inconclusive discussion about who may relist an RM discussion. Interpretations and opinions obviously differ. I very rarely relist anything; but in the present case it could not be denied that seven days were elapsing, there was still vigorous discussion, and questions had been put but not yet answered. Since that relisting, discussion has continued, so that seems to vindicate my action. And opinions are evenly divided between oppose and support.

Apteva, you reiterate the opinion you expressed in the WT:DAB; but it remains just one opinion among several. It is not true that only the eventual closer ever relists (contradicted, in fact, by the very diff it uses as an example); and it is not clear that only an uninvolved admin or editor may relist.

Noetica^Tea? 08:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusing relist notice

Hi Noetica,

Regarding the same relist here, I find the result confusing on first look. It looks like the original nomination is yours. In general, inserting any comment between someones comment and their signature is to be avoided. Why not use Template:Relist? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Smokey, using that template is one option; but it seems quite unnecessary and extremely rare for RMs. See the diff given as an example in the quoted text above; and see the last dozen relistings in the WP:RM listings. In effect they are done just I have done mine, except that I add a clarification (seen often before, from admins like Mike Cline). And note: the signed relist note is supposed to come before the signature of the RM's proposer. Always. It is distinguished by use of small text.

Noetica^Tea? 08:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not recall ever seeing anyone inserting any comments other than just the word "relist" or something very similar. That though is not the issue. Why would the proposer of an RM be following the instructions for the closer? Neither are the same. It is just basic procedure to allow an uninvolved editor handle any close or relisting, no matter what it is, RfC, AfD, RM, all are handled the same way. We let someone else do the close or relisting. But in the diff, above, the text used was simply "Relisted", and then a huge long stylized signature, that really was not the best of examples that could have been used. There actually are a very small number of RM regulars who do most of the closes and relistings. Right now we have been actively asking for some more help because the backlog is so large, but we never expected the proposers of the RMs to be doing their own relistings or closings. By the way, I would suggest per above refracting the relist to just the word relisted, and removing the reason. Apteva (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh. Now, let's consider the matter closed. I am not interested in hearing any more from you on this topic, Apteva. Noetica^Tea? 09:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the wording. In fact, I think an explanation for a relist is helpful. Just this time, I was surprised at what I thought was your nomination, until I got to your !vote against. But certainly no big deal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligence

Greetings Noetica. If nothing better comes of the current RfC, I will have done well for having collaborated with you. I came to this discussion only recently, for different reasons all together. I only noticed the discussion by that chance. I don't know how hard fought the battles were, nor the players. I can accept the consensus either way, though if I had entered the en dash debate when it began, I believe I would have opposed its use; except perhaps for newer subjects, with some form of grandfathering for hyphenated articles that were already published in Wikipedia that way. My reason would be based on the assumption that -- could have been used if the writers felt the more prominent dash was the best fit for that article. Naturally where technology has advanced, any occurrence of -- could be updated to – an en dash without objection, I would imagine. But to take well accepted common names and basically respell them; I think is arrogant, and not a best exercise of editorial judgement, IMO. What am I failing to consider regarding the dash to answer that question? --My76Strat (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to my talkpage, Strat. I really like the way you are contributing at the RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal. It's hugely important to get that simple clarification. We can talk about it here, if you like; but not now! Way too much to do in real life, for me.

Just note: often an RFC can be stalled when participants basically agree, but insist on their own preferred variant. Well, such variants may have great merit! But the essential thing is to achieve the basic reform first. It can be really positive to reconsider, and support a simple initial proposal. We often find that perfection is the enemy of the good (as I was reminded recently). Can we get what's good first, in the present case? Perfection (like heaven) can wait!

Noetica^Tea? 00:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

FOC reminder

First, I remind you of WP:FOC

Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to our community. Bringing up conduct often leads to painful digressions and misunderstandings.

It can be difficult to focus on content if other editors appear to be uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind, which will only serve to derail the discussion. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below.

I remind you of this because of this comment of yours on the disambiguation talk page:

So when one's own take on a guideline is questioned in a hotly contested RM that is not going as one likes, with hard argument one is at a loss to answer, one denigrates the opposition as "confused", and rushes off to change the guideline in midstream?

Second, at the time you made this comment, I had addressed hours earlier every element of your "hard argument" at the discussion to which you were referring. Catch up.

Oh, I see you have now, finally, responded. And you're still claiming I missed your point. Sigh. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my talkpage, B2C. Quite obviously we disagree fundamentally. Yes, while you were posting here, I was proposing that we abandon that long-winded discussion (see the diff). ("Finally"? So rude. We in other time zones do sleep occasionally, you know.) Of course we must focus on content. Unfortunately, when I attempt the detailed and sophisticated analysis that is essential if I am to counter your facile claims (as I see them!), your responses are equally facile. They are governed by ill-examined principles that appear to have no basis beyond certain misreadings of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you have variously campaigned to include, elevated in status, or tweaked to suit an agenda. You are often so heavily involved and present (see ArbCom's warning to you) that it is often difficult to separate you from the content. Trust me: I wish it were easier.

I have long avoided areas in which you (and a couple of others) dominate and do not genuinely discuss. It is so unpleasant. Others feel the same way (as reading through these wretched exchanges will demonstrate. See how I have been almost absent from RM discussions, till I recently decided to test the water again? I see not much improvement.

Let's try to stay out of each other's way, yes? You can help by not attempting to tweak your favourite guidelines when a discussion is too hard for you to win, and your "opponent" is therefore quite obviously "confused" (see WT:DAB).

♥

Noetica^Tea? 23:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment may help close a requested move about a MOS issue

Hello Noetica. I'm trying to clear out some old move requests from the backlog. One of them is related to the WP:MOS: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Requested move

The people who favor this move are saying that this 'Falkland Islands work group/Units' page ought to be moved to a subpage under WP:Manual of Style, next to the other specialized style guides that now reside there. The requester is citing this RfC which you marked as Resolved back in July 2011:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123#RFC: Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

The catch (in my mind) is that you found only a consensus to make 82 *existing* pages of type Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Hawaii-related articles) become subpages under WP:Manual of Style. At least some of these are marked {{style-guideline}}, which I assume needs consensus. Do you think your RfC paves the way for the Falklands people to move their 'Units' page into that august set of subpages? Thanks for any ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Ed. No time today, but I'll have a close look at the whole thing tomorrow.

Noetica^Tea? 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Done: diff Noetica^Tea? 12:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noetica,

I left a message for you at the article talk page. The background to this is that two editors used the project page in question as a means of bullying. When both editors appeared to take a Wikibreak, I decided that the best way to handle this page was to have the Wikipedia community kill it. Since this could not be done using a AFD (it was in WP space), the best way forward was to move it into MOS space and to integrate the useful parts (if any) into MOSNUM and then have it flagged as "obsolete". Unfortunately the two editors in question cut their Wikibreaks short hence the long dialogue. Martinvl (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Martin. All closed and settled now, I think. Noetica^Tea? 22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Group x names

Thank you for your kind note on my page. No problem with me you had no time. I don't think further discussion would have changed the outcome. Most other opponents were editors I know from WP:ELEMENTS, and clearly I could not explain both the grammar and the formal UIPAC naming to precicely them! Of course and as I said indirectly, "even" your proposed plurals would be an improvement to the current way.

Reopening the discussion is a bit undone, I think, beause there is no reason to do so. Also, I myself am a bit disappointed in the outcome. It must wait till the high school students will revolt when they have to use these grammatically ugly constructions when they enter Periodic Table knowledge. Or so. But some other time & page we might cross again, and I'll ask you to take a look into something similar for your contribution was usefull to me. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow that is fast ;-) And I was not stalking since it very likely could be on my watchlist. -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Noetica. You have new messages at Talk:Derek Dooley (American football).
Message added 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Noted Noetica^Tea? 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Plaisir

Thanks for your explanation on French song titles. Oh and edits at WP:FRMOS and other places. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Noetica^Tea? 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying "unique primary topic"

You used the term "unique primary topic" at the Wizard of Oz RM discussion as if the meaning is obvious. I asked you about that a couple of days ago, but no answer yet. Perhaps you didn't see that? An answer/explanation would be appreciated. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy. Done now. I used "unique" simply to emphasise the WP conventional meaning, not to restrict that meaning. Noetica^Tea? 21:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Big

I have made a proposal to rename Big to Big (film). I am not sure I did it right, so if you could help me in figuring out how to do it better that would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to my talkpage, John! That was a bold thing to do. I have taken what you say as a request to rework the format and to correct some details at the new RM. I hope you will accept those as much clearer now. The templates are not always very friendly, I had intended to start another RM for this article myself, but later. There are many other irons in the fire! Still, let's go ahead. Essential reading for you:

• The earlier RM for this article (study the arguments; count the votes!). Study the opinions of the usual suspects, main players in the RM game. We should make sure it is not archived during the course of the new RM.
• The move review following the ridiculous closure of that RM. (Context: not one move review has ever succeeded, so far.)
• Guidelines at WP:DAB, which include WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Very rarely read in all its detail, and often misapplied at RM discussions – as if there must be a primary topic in all cases.
• Policy at WP:TITLE, especially the main provisions near the top, and the references to the guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Again, contributors and closers at RM discussions very frequently do not read, understand, or apply accurately all of those provisions. Especially read the nutshell at the top: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." And also this imperative, which is regularly ignored in RM discussions: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." If only!
• The Big Mess!

Let's work on this one together, yes? I will be happy to discuss any issues with you as they arise.

I see from your talkpage that you were at Brigham Young University. That's the home of COCA, which I have used extensively in the discussion at Talk:Brand New (disambiguation). Let's see how that RM will go, too! Some entrenched beliefs are in play, but the evidence is all against them.

Finally, since your comment in the Brand New discussion is essentially a vote of support, could you please mark it like that? Easier for people to track things then. Do it like this, at its start: '''Support.'''

Noetica^Tea? 09:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten that the corpus is based out of BYU. I actually created our article on its creator, Mark Davies (linguist), and there was an attempt to delete the article on him. People just seem to not get the importance of some academics. The article could use some work, but I don't think there is any question that Daives is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement

A request for Arbcom enforcement has been filed here. Apteva (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)