User talk:Noetica

Νοητικά means "things of the intellect", just as φυσικά means "things of nature (physics)". Consensus has it that I am male, and Australian. When stationed on the planet's surface awaiting orders for my next assignment, I specialise in the details at WP:MOS – punctuation and style recommendations for our 6,824,186 articles.

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

---

Hi

Nice to see you back, Noetica. I don't generally hang around MOS, but our paths may cross elsewhere. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Good to see you're still active! I'll be doing a bit of MOS work at least. Then we'll see ...

(We should catch up again some time. I might email you.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Query about italic face

Noetica: help! Can you give an opinion here? Tony (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at the location in question, Tony.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mexican~American War business

I appreciate your cooperation on the Mexican~American War issue. I know our debate got a little heated. Honestly I am just leaning toward the hyphen camp and my mind could certainly be changed. I don't really care which sides wins, I just want consistency. Hopefully other editors will like our proposed solution. –CWenger (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you, for what promises to be a breakthrough. I hope everyone will join in and keep an open mind. I have already advertised our new suggestion here at WT:MOS. Some background: as a professional editor (by the way: Australian, male) with a research interest in systems of punctuation, my passionate concern at Wikipedia is to develop the Manual of Style. It helps ensure rational and consistent practice throughout our millions of articles. Well-founded local interests may clash with that well-founded global interest. Inevitable, on any vast project. The only hope is to work with fair and orderly process, and good will. Starting with us.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese hyphenation conventions

Hi Noetica,

On this discussion, I think you've misread the (very vague) Chinese MOS conventions. Not hyphenating language names means not hyphenating the 'language' or 'speech' morpheme at the end of the name; AFAIK it doesn't address whether the stem itself is hyphenated. Forms like Jing-Jin for Beijing-Tianjin suggest it should be, and iso conventions reflect that (Pu-Xian Chinese, etc). Anyway, I've asked for clarification here. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Kwami. Glad you dropped in for tea. Pu-erh OK?

I was very cautious in my statement of support:

... subject to later review if more specific WP guidelines are developed for such names. This is a very difficult case, located at the confluence of several issues in English punctuation practice and various cross-linguistic accommodations. In the end I am swayed by ...

The Library of Congress guidelines are themselves odd. We know that they do not follow the standard Chinese ruling for apostrophes, so why should we expect them to be deeply accurate concerning hyphens? But the current WP ruling that you and I want clarified does appeal to Library of Congress. I cannot get involved in all this right now, despite my abiding interest in everything concerning Chinese use of punctuation (and use of punctuation for Chinese: not the same thing). One note in passing: you invoke "Niger-Congo" (see your link above); but at least one authority has it as "Niger–Congo", in a linguistic context. I can find that for you if you like; but not right now. Too busy!

Noetica^Tea? 23:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "Niger–Congo" would be correct if we're going to use disjunctive dashes. But it would require changing so many generally unambiguous articles that it might not be worth it. (Though I would like to see that ref when you get a chance.)

Never had Pu-erh tea. I'll have to try it. Had some wonderful whole-leaf green tea from Saigon, but I ate it all. (Yes, ate. I couldn't bear to throw the leaves away after steeping.) — kwami (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

More Mexican~American War

Wasn't this edit (the dashes part of it) a violation of MOS:CONSISTENCY? –CWenger (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you here, CWenger. No, it was not a violation. For one thing, some material on the page (in the categories at the bottom, and elsewhere) had the en dash form and could not be changed, and some had the hyphen form. So consistency could not be achieved in any case. Therefore, when in doubt, edit according to clear MOS guidelines. The prevailing and irremediable inconsistency comes about because of editors' refusal to accept a peace proposal that you tentatively suggested and I took up and presented, in the second RM at Talk:Mexican-American War (and see current discussion there). I'm not kidding: this is all more serious than it looks, because of the wide implications for policies and guidelines, and the potential to generate precedents for disorder if they are ignored. Noetica^Tea? 04:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was half joking with you, in light of the fact that it would not be possible to edit the page and adhere to the MOS! Anyway, in all seriousness, I am sad to see the dispute still ongoing, and our proposal not really getting anywhere. As I mentioned on the talk page, it looks like we are unfortunately going to have to go to to arbitration/mediation. –CWenger (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Noetica, I see that you have now re-inserted the dash. The two requests for move should be a big clue that consensus is against you. Please restore the hyphen yourself or I'll have to report you to the edit warring noticeboard. (P.D.: I have gone ahead and undid your revert. If you or anyone else tries to ignore again the result of the move requests and edits war over stylistic issues, then I'll drag that person to WP:AN3 for blocking. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering that you're edit warring, that's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? The MOS is clear, so she at least has that on her side. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:CONSISTENCY is pretty clear.... in that Noetica is wrong. You can't invoke the MOS to say exactly the opposite of what it says. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(and, Noetica, for the renaming of the categories I'll go and open a request in WP:CFD. I still hadn't gone around to that. I'm trying to go slowly, step by step.) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, welcome to Kwami and Enric!

• First, a note on pronouns and the like: "he" and "his" would be more natural in my case (see a note to CWenger earlier). Not that I care much! I like the web to be unsexed; but some people are uncomfortable with that. Hungarian has the idea: same pronoun for male and female. "Noetica" is a Greek neuter plural. Its meaning? Left as an exercise for anyone interested.
• Enric: I see my invitation to peacemaking whooshed right over your head. You paid not the slightest attention when CWenger hinted at a fair procedure to solve such wrangling. When I developed it and promoted it hard, you did what you could to hijack the initiative with tired old mantras about reliable sources. It turned out there was no point trying reason or compromise with you. Accordingly, I will not. By all means, go step by benighted step, blind to the larger questions that are really at issue. If you ever get bored with that (which it seems you may not), read the article Sphex. One of my favourites.

Noetica^Tea? 23:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I reported you for continuing an edit war where other editor left it, violating MOS:STABILITY, refusing to accept two consecutive move requests, etc. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Noetica_reported_by_User:Enric_Naval_.28Result:_.29. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How does a person 'continue an edit war' on behalf of someone else? If you have different editors each time going back and forth, I think that there is probably a different name for that, but who knows. -- Avanu (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing hyphens after -ly adverbs

I am inviting your comments at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Removing hyphens after -ly adverbs (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Wavelength. I will turn my attention to that when I have time.

Noetica^Tea? 23:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock (someone else's abuse of the same IP address)

{{unblock-auto}}

Hello, I notice you still had this unblock request up, but you seem to be editing, so I suppose this has become moot now? Let me know if you still encounter any problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks FP. I switched to a different provider in order to edit. Let's see how it goes tomorrow. Thanks! [Posted also at FP's page.] Noetica^Tea? 11:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Touchy much?

I'm not sure why you think I'm patronizing you, but ok. As far as that other person's choice of username, it might have been better not to mention that I dislike having to type it, but my impression was that they deliberately chose a username like that and I have every right to dislike it. It doesn't affect how I treat him otherwise, in fact I have indicated how much I agree with his logic and rationale. If you choose to focus on my short aside rather than the actual rest of the discussion, go for it. I don't see how me disliking a username relates to the rest and in all other ways I've been civil as some of you (overly) passionate editors argue about an essentially minor issue. So just have fun with it, it's not that big of a deal in the big picture. -- Avanu (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your generally lighthearted approach is to be commended. Your rapidly formed impressions might be engaging to observe when you display them in public, if they were not a distraction and an impertinence. But you don't understand many of the issues – even, until recently, a core one concerning how punctuation works. More advice for you then: if you know little, say little. Support that is capricious and uninformed is not what we need right now. We would see who is "touchy", if the gloves were off and I were at all inclined to be "playful" with you. Noetica^Tea? 11:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand the punctuation just fine, and I'm willing to admit I could always learn more. If this were a perfectly clear issue, it wouldn't have gone on for this long. Generally, it appears to me that the hyphen has taken on a role much like the word "their" has in relation to not being absolutely 'proper', but at least generally accepted. People used to say "The person took his book to class." and for a time people tried to say "The person took his/her book to class." in order to be politically correct. Now, many people say "The person took their book to class." The word wasn't intended to be used that way, but it fills a void. That's how language is. It moves and changes over time. Our dear friend the hyphen never wanted to be promoted, but there he sits, ready and willing on the keyboards of so many, and expediency made him a ready option for a dash -- or simply a faux dash -

My attitude toward such things is not as rigid as yours and I'm not willing to be offended by their misuse as easily. I am a fairly nitpicky person, but quoting manuals of style or reliable sources doesn't work as well as an actual well-reasoned argument, and Dicklyon gave us that, and I appreciated it. Saying I don't understand "many of the issues" just makes me wonder how many issues there could really even be here. Is a dash correct or is a hyphen correct, what more is there? I'm just not as nitpicky as some, I suppose. I'm willing to allow it to be slightly wrong, if it ends up furthering the overall goal of Wikipedia. I can be quite a bit like yourself if I choose to be, but for an issue like this one regarding the dash, I'm not willing to allow myself to become so emotionally involved that it becomes a big deal. -- Avanu (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, if the implication you were making earlier has some relation to some sort of academic or intellectual elitism, kindly leave that out. Some people believe they win an argument by saying "I'm a PhD in X." But in reality, we win arguments by reason and logic. While rote is useful, reason ultimately wins. -- Avanu (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for entering into dialogue, Avanu. I do like a chat! But it might be best to for us to leave it now. Some of what you say here is mere guesswork. My attitude to punctuation is far from rigid, and again you have not looked at the evidence. I never even hint that there is a single "correct" way to punctuate, to use your term. But WP:MOS must make recommendations: based on rational analysis, of course; but also on precedent and practice, of course. I have repeatedly said that I will not do such analysis of punctuation guidelines, nor cite my collection of style guides, until the discussion is focused, open-minded, and conducted at WT:MOS. Do you imagine that I have time to do it wherever people open a discussion? It's hard enough to maintain focus in the appropriate forum, let alone at every other random nook of the Project. I am not "emotionally involved" concerning the wretched dash, and how people might like to blot their favourite articles with inconsistencies. I am emotionally involved in seeing that sound guidelines are maintained for the Project, by collaborative effort. And that they are not ignorantly despised or damaged. It is easy to accuse someone who takes a stand for that; I have recently been accused, on the most spurious and defeasible grounds. I tolerate that, for now.

Well, I support that kind of focused and open debate also. And I think you are right that the issue is not being discussed/settled in the proper forum. I'm very supportive of your effort in that area, and if it helps, I can take a less cavalier approach in future. I'm all for fairness and doing things right. Let me apologize for any offense, you seem to be very willing to do what is right and have your heart in line with that. And to address what you add below, I'm not terribly familiar with what you've contributed, I only came into the Mex-Am article because of someone bringing a complaint to the Wikiquette page and it led me to be curious about it. I appreciate the chat also, and wish you well. -- Avanu (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why you mention PhDs and elitism. I do not rely on what professional status or qualifications I might have, but on hard, sustained argument. If you doubt that, you are not familiar with my record here. Not surprising: I was blissfully away from all involvement on Wikipedia for a year: until recently, when I found there were abuses to counter. I really don't want to be here, and put up with any of this. But I will stay for now. Now go! And be good. I'll try to do the same. Noetica^Tea? 12:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

On en dashes

[MOVED, so that the current discussion can run better below:] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute".Thank you.  Sandstein  20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Current discussion:

I have been looking into the hyphen / en dash issue more and I have a question for you. I looked up Michelson–Morley experiment (which we both agree should be en dashed) on Google Books. Looking through the first two pages, about half of the results do in fact use an en dash, the rest use a hyphen except one which uses a space. (They all show up as hyphens in the search results, but when you actually go look they are sometimes dashes.) Again, I have said I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies to punctuation, I think Wikipedia should be free to use its own typography just like any other publication. So even if slightly more use a hyphen I don't think we have to follow them, we can use our discretion that an en dash is more professional. But then I look up Mexican~American War on Google Books. I don't see any results that use an en dash. That, along with the fact that the MOS:ENDASH examples all use words acting as nouns (France–Germany border rather than French–German border), leads me to question if this rule is really being interpreted/applied correctly. If you can convince me, I might change my mind back. It would certainly be easier to rename the one article rather than a whole set of other articles and categories (including other wars), but I want to be correct. –CWenger (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What CWenger says is more or less my impression also. I have found in the meantime that there are some (apparently few) style guides that do include adjectival cases like this among the en-dash cases (e.g. Cambridge guide to English usage), but it seems a decidedly marginal type of usage, and I really can't see a good reason why our MOS should mandate such a thing against the huge majority of writers and publishers out there, and against the practice of the huge majority of Wikipedia editors. Especially since the main reason why this usage seems to have taken hold in some domains of article titling appears to be that some very few editors once took a rule they themselves hardly understood, and ran away with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I would also add that some of the logic I have heard in defense of the clarity of the en dash is not very persuasive to me. For example, I have heard Mexican-American War/war could mean (1) a war of the Mexican-American variety, or (2) a war among Mexican Americans. I think both usages are extremely unlikely, but in any case, for (1) war would be lowercase to differentiate, and for (2) it would be a proper noun and could be called anything regardless of precision (e.g. the French and Indian War). I genuinely don't know if a hyphen or en dash is correct but I assume there is some reason, and not sheer coincidence, that so few sources call it the Mexican–American War. –CWenger (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for coming here. Briefly and bluntly (since I extremely busy with editing tasks in the real world), both of you have expressed support or opposition for RMs without slow consideration of the issues. (And CWenger, you changed your vote in one RM on the flimsiest of amateur-linguist testimony from Headbomb. I did not stoop to counter his evidence, since Talk:Mexican-American War was not a suitable forum; I cannot replicate all of this wherever people choose to raise it.) But supporting or opposing as you do is your prerogative. Do as you please. Now, I have a great deal of evidence to adduce on the matter. But I have steadily maintained that the place for it all to be worked out is WT:MOS. I will not, as I have steadily pointed out, weigh in with full argument and evidence until conditions are met for a rational, respectful, and systematic treatment. This reason I give for holding back is itself repeatedly and irresponsibly misrepresented. There is current discussion at WT:MOS. Why not go there?

Next time you come I'll put the kettle on. (Anything but Earl Grey, of course.)

Noetica^Tea? 01:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My original intention was to have a smaller discussion that would not explode into multiple pages of comments from various editors, but that may be a hopeless endeavor. As an aside, I don't appreciate being told I changed my vote on flimsy evidence, and I doubt many people would... –CWenger (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's regrettable, CWenger; but like you, I think we must often call it as we see it. At least you might now have a closer understanding of the many things I have not "appreciated" over the last few weeks. ☺ Best wishes, as always. Noetica^Tea? 13:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, that editor who closed the AN discussion seems very emotionally hyped up about it. On one hand, I'm glad a rather arbitrary discussion got closed, but on the other hand, the person who ended up closing it characterized the discussion and participants as being "so fucked up it's going to wind up at ArbCom". I noted the extreme hostility of some of the non-involved people toward us at the outset, but as time went on, we saw new editors arrive who were actually intent on legitimate and thoughtful discussion, so I'm a little puzzled by such a harsh judgement of the process. To me, this experience shows that this is a subject worth discussing, but also worth resolving. And hopefully, it shows that when people are interested in discussing something, an admin has a responsibility to work *with* other editors, not against them. -- Avanu (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, between our earlier talk about my somewhat cavalier attitude, and the AN topic ban thing, I am not sure being less than serious in tone is useful anymore. In a way I don't know what tone is right anymore. I actually was ready to throw in the towel here if that discussion at AN had gone how I feared at first. -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick post in reply, Avanu, with more to come when I have time. Thanks for your wrapping things up (touch wood) at WP:AN. You might be interested in this this edit I just made at a page that attempts to be humorous. I think it's only fair that it be really funny, don't you? Instead of a mere put-down of everyone, including peacemakers in the whole saga. See what you think (and see the talkpage there also). For next time: I have no Coke here. Do you drink tea also? Noetica^Tea? 06:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, tea is just fine also. :) I'm glad things didn't get pulled down into an abyss at the AN. I was pretty nervous at first because of the crazy hostile comments being made. And yes, I went ahead and re-wrapped the AN discussion; I didn't want to end up with Sven and you getting pulled into something new. Hadn't expected this level of adrenaline in Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Manguard

Noetica, I greatly sympathise with your being abused by Manguard. It's absurd how he suppresses discussion, both on his talk page and on an open forum. I suggest that you take action on this and file an SPI. Looking at his earliest edits, you will notice an irregular knack with Wikipedia jargon, templates, and process, namely the use of "userspace", removal of welcome template, and a warning to an IP. He has claimed that he is a former IP editor, but I am dubious. Please do us all a favour and shut him down once and for all. I am fed up with his general pompousness and what he did to Tony. By virtue of my circumstances, I am unable to file to SPI, so I leave it to you. Vivastun ^(talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Vivastun, first of all, your signature needs fixing. [Markup here corrupted by signature; I repaired it. Noetica^Tea? 07:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)] I have posted something in response to Sven's latest disorderly attempts to impose his idiosyncratic brand of order on proceedings. (See content visible above Avanu's tidying and conciliatory edit.) That's all I will do for now; but if I have any more trouble from Sven I will look again at the options. Thanks for dropping in! Stay for a cup of tea next time, yes? Noetica^Tea? 06:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

[Nameless new section after refactoring]

Sir, pray keep off my talk page.

You have a conciliatory edit; I have removed the moral claim, and asserted mere facts; what you demand is that I cease to state facts. If your friend is wearing the Emperor's New Clothes, the way to deal with it is to persuade him to get dressed, not demand that everyone else go into denial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I will no longer issue such due notice at your talkpage. My present request, as amended, stands. Noetica^Tea? 07:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I cannot, and do not, refuse you permission to make edits you are required to make, such as ANI notifications. If you do omit them, I will complain accordingly; if you want that, that's your decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Logarithm

I've responded to your comments about logarithms. I'd appreciate some update, whether you consider these matters fixed or not. Thanks muchly, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds needs you

Featured sounds was booming with activity in the March/April period, ideally that should be all the time. FS has been a battleground at times, however, it is my hope that that is in the past. I ask you all to reconsider your positions and set aside the differences you may have had with other participants for the good of the project and encyclopedia. Don't let FS become like VP, it is a path that a featured process should traverse. You were sent this message because you are listed at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Contributors or have been a past contributor.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Featured sound candidates at 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

By the way

Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not upset here or anything. A shorthand handle for me is usually "Ohms" rather then "V" or "V=". The V=I*R thing is the actual algorithm for Ohm's law, which is why I use it as my sig, since that's where the user name came from... oh, and I'm glad that you got the joking reference earlier, and weren't insulted or anything. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in, Ohms. Tea? I have some excellent choices from Yunnan. Concerning your name, I fully understand that V = I*R is the equation that represents Ohm's law. But I deliberately used "V" and "V =" in answering you because newcomers, and those unaware of such physics, might be mystified otherwise. May I suggest that you take this into consideration? We both know how complex the to and fro of discussion can get, without the added difficulty of tracking who is answering whom.

Finally, I may have got some joking reference to something earlier; but I do not currently get what you reference you are referring to.

Do come again.

Noetica^Tea? 02:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tea, *blech*. I'll have some coffee though. Thanks! :D
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FSC backlog

WP:FSC has gotten backed up due to limited feedback. Your feedback would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for calling in, TonyTT. Tea? (Anything but Earl Grey here.)

I'll look in at WP:FSC and see what can be done. A little tied up just with other things, but I'll take a look soon.

Noetica^Tea? 02:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bold of you

I don't mind at all. JIMp _talk·cont 05:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I wish we had more participation at MediaWiki talk:Edittools‎. Changes are too often made by technerds (bless 'em) without explanation or discussion; but these things affect the work of all editors. MOS specialists would do the Project a service by hanging out there more often.

Noetica^Tea? 05:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy Thorn Reliquary

As usual I am going to revert about 50% of your changes - I don't for example consider that the introduction of long phrases in parentheses has any of the benefits claimed in yor edit summaries. You might note the explanation given at the FAC for the Duke/duc "inconsistency". Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, welcome! Now John, I don't understand your "as usual". I have not edited anything that you have been concerned with since 2009 at the latest. I understand your sensitivity; but sometimes we get too close to a favourite project and cannot see how it might be improved "from outside". You might consider something like that for the present case. It is clear, for example, that you fail to detect the replications of words and forms that I have rectified. A pity that you gave the matter so little thought. As for the Duke/duc thing, if you look at all the instances freshly you will find stark and unaccountable inconsistency. There is also inconsistency with capitalisation ("crown of thorns") that cannot be justified by context. Still, I'll leave it for now. Noetica^Tea? 00:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As I say, see the FAC, where both issues are discussed. You have your own style and, as this page amply demonstrates, other people have theirs. It seems that every time I have something at TFA, there is this very last minute copyedit, which seems to consist of about 25% useful improvements, 40% entirely pointless rewording, 25% subtle Americanization, and 10% clearly detrimental edits, usually arising from not knowing the subject at all. There is enough to worry about on TFA day with vandals, without having to cope with this late night onslaught as well. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Every time "you" have something at TFA? ☺? It is not late at night in the world, John: just in your part of it. I have not been responsible for any depredation of the sort you mention here, having had very little to do with TFAs. Subtle Americanization and other such rust are a problem on Wikipedia generally; but I certainly don't do that, from the Antipodes. If you can't see the point of my rewordings, you need to take a breath and perpend. Try taking a longer view, with less chance of distorted perspective. Noetica^Tea? 00:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Having been working on the article for a year, I think it is I who have the longer perspective. It is indeed in my part of the world that it is late at night, but you should bear in mind that that is where I live. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that is the jeweller's close-at-hand perspective, and the fine results of your work do you credit. But the genius of Wikipedia is that others can come in with improvements – improvements that intimacy with detail, over weeks or months, often precludes. Wikipedia is edited around the world, by dwellers in the world at large. I don't expect you to appreciate changes I make, any more than I appreciate what I take to be thoughtless reflex reversions. Such is life, and such are the inevitable tensions. Tea next time? Noetica^Tea? 01:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember - this is Wikipedia (with all that implies) - and it is meant to be fun. Aa77zz (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, Aa. Fun and excellence, all at the same time. Noetica^Tea? 07:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Colored box on the dash drafting page

I saw that you'd reverted Koavf's change to the message box's color, and I was hoping that I could convince you to change your mind on that. Maybe it was "playful", or whatever, but Koavf said in his edit summary that the yellow is abrasive and I happen to (quite strongly, actually) agree with him. It's not a big deal really, but... would you revert it back? Please? That damn yellow hurts my eyes. :(
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

O Ohms! You may consider my reversion itself playful. Make it a third colour, more exactly to your liking. I promise not to take you to WP:ANI or WP:AE over it.

(Now, something Brazilian OK for you? Pure arabica, of course.) Noetica^Tea? 04:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yumm, don't mind if I do. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Of dingoes, "and/or", and Footy

G'day, Mate! Thanks, but I'm not sure I was being all that shrewd. The hint on your Talk page about being an Aussie seems fairly clear to me, at least if one is willing to take a (very?) small leap of faith, given that you don't deny the "consensus."

I'll reply as soon as I can to your most recent post re the dingoes example, but it'll probably be a day or two ... or more. Interim reply:

I completely bungled my set theory terminology in my post. My set theory is very old and rusty, and even at its best, it wasn't very good. When I said:

Assuming for the purpose of illustration that dingoes and wild dogs are identical (that is, neither one is a subset of the other), ...

the parenthetical "that is, ..." phrase was completely wrong. I meant identical to be taken absolutely literally. I also intended that is to be interpreted exactly the way you stated a little later, that is, which is to say the same as. ;-7 Unfortunately, what I said after that is didn't convey what I meant it to at all. (I'd completely forgotten that every set is a subset of itself, although not a proper subset.)

To be clear: Solely for the purpose of this illustration (disregarding that this is in fact sometimes incorrect), I intended dingoes and wild dogs to be sets that are completely overlapping (whatever the correct terminology is for that)—which I intend to mean, neither is a proper subset of the other, they don't just partly overlap, and they're not disjoint. (Is it proper to interpret "disjoint" as "mutually exclusive"? In any event, I think one might describe my intent to be that the two sets are mutually inclusive.) All dingoes are (also) wild dogs, and all wild dogs are (also) dingoes. There are no dingoes that are not wild dogs, and there are no wild dogs that are not dingoes. {wild dogs} ≡ {dingoes} The 2 terms are perfect synonyms. ("There is no God but God, and ...," etc.)

If I might ask a favor, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could tell me the correct term for "completely overlapping" so I can use it in my post.

• Is it just "identical sets"? (I found that in one of my old math books.)

[Note: More to come shortly, I hope. --Jackftwist ]

Well! First, just let me put the kettle on.

Now, don't assume that all Australians say "g'day", or have the faintest idea about "footy". I gather you mean the game played with long balls, not a stick and a hard little red ball, right? I know nothing of such matters. On the other hand, I am frequently among kangaroos, so I do fit at least one stereotype. Not dingoes: but I did look after a friend's half-dingo-half-German-shepherd for a year, while he was overseas. Looked like the one at the top of Dingo article. A really clever animal.

I suggest you review the terms at Set_theory#Basic_concepts. "Overlapping" is not among them; but I used it informally to mean "having elements in common". By such a definition, every set would overlap with itself, except that it leaves out the null set (with respect to itself alone, and to itself and any other set), which has no elements yet is a subset of every set (including itself, of course). For that reason, "overlapping" is desperately loose, and best left out of any serious continuation. For a similar but more remediable quirk, see Intersection_(set_theory)#Nullary_intersection.

If you want to say that all wild dogs are dingoes, and all dingoes are wild dogs, you can indeed say "the set of dingoes is identical to the set of wild dogs". It gets complicated when you reflect on whether you mean this as a matter of definition, or as an accidental fact. I mean, it could be that there are many wild dogs, and some of them you want to call dingoes; then all the non-dingoes die out. In that case it is just accidentally true that the sets are identical, yes? Your notation "{wild dogs} ≡ {dingoes}" then looks questionable, hmm? A lot depends on – a lot else. But I'm too tired to get into any of it.

For the rest, what can I say? I am no deep authority on set theory, nor on dingoes. I do claim expertise with punctuation: its theory, its regimentation in practice, and something of its history. If you think things need to be taken forward with this newcomer, the slash "/", I'll watch with interest and I might participate. However, with respect: I think you have extracted from me a generous slice of my attention.

I hope you, in turn, will look at the new draft (see the pale green navbox) in this section of WT:MOS. It was a long time in the making, believe me. See also the latest tranches of discussion below it (latest chapters in an epic); and watch for a final version tomorrow.

Now: milk no sugar, right?

Noetica^Tea? 05:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"TMTCFY"? new "Dashes" section & "memorable"

I'm delighted to see the new "Dashes" section progressing (it appears) in the approval/adoption process.

In your reply to one of A. di M.'s posts in the subsequent discussion, you used the abbreviation "TMTCFY". A search of 4 major online dictionaries of abbreviations, plus both a WP and a Google search, yielded no explanation of it, and I couldn't figure it out from the context. Am I missing something? (I'm not particularly fluent in that argot.)

Finally, in the section "Features of the Draft" of your "Preliminary Notes", you said, "... the principles themselves are simple and memorable." Memorable? MWC11 defines memorable as, "worth remembering : NOTABLE <a ~ occasion>." Although these rules might be "worth remembering" in one sense, I don't think they rise to the standard MWC11 intended, which IMO implies something of considerably greater significance. E.g., the day you were born was probably a memorable day to your mother; "To be or not to be, that is the question ..." is one of the most memorable lines in all of English-language literature; but "an en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name"? Umm, not so much. It's simply of a different ilk altogether. And there are too many of them to be "easy to remember", at least for me (and my memory for grammar rules is pretty good, although quite short of yours, of course).

I'm not sure principles was the right word to use, either. Aren't they just rules? Or rationales for those rules? But I'll let that one slide for now. My prior quibble is sufficient unto the day. And now, one craves a cup of tea. – Jack --Jackftwist (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's “Too many things can f*** you”, innit? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to make sense in the context. Many thanks. Odd that it didn't show up in at least my Google search, or perhaps it was just so many pages down in the search results that I ran out of patience and/or ;-) time before I got to that entry. Jack --Jackftwist (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack, TMTCFY stands for "to make things clearer for you". I used it in answering A di M, who has a habit of using such abbreviated forms to the distress of his elders (you and me) who have no idea what he might mean by them. ITCN?

Now I turn to the word memorable. As a preliminary I should warn you (as a black-belt might in a casual skirmish): I collect dictionaries as well as style guides. I have OED and two editions of SOED installed on every computer in the house, and access to the current online version of OED, along with every major British and American dictionary, in hardcopy or some other form. Memorable, according to the current SOED, has been in English since the 15th century and has these meanings: "Worthy of remembrance or note, worth remembering, not to be forgotten; able to be remembered, easy to remember." Current OED gives this as its second sense: "2. Easy to remember, able to be remembered; memorizable." Citations include Shakespeare and Ruskin; the most recent citation is from 1991. Most American dictionaries agree, including the big brother of the one you cite above: MWNI3 ([Merriam-]Webster's Third New International Dictionary).

As for principles, that is chosen with great care. The contents of MOS are not rules in the fullest sense, because MOS provides guidelines rather than rules of policy for the project. They are rules in a weaker sense, of course: like the rules of a game that one can play or not, or cheat at or not. But principles rules out interpretations that rules principally evokes.

I hope you are content that the issue of positive and negative examples has been addressed. There will never be agreement on the best way to distinguish them; but the matter has been taken seriously.

Finally, I'm sorry for the late reply. I was exhausted after the marathon dashes drama, and just wanted silence for a couple of weeks.

Tea next time, OK? (Could you bring a couple of muffins?)

Noetica^Tea? 05:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ITYM is a somewhat standard initialism whose meaning can be found with a simple Google search without even clicking through or scrolling down, unlike TMTCFY. Also, what my age has to do with that eludes me. I have no idea of your age or that of most other people on en.wiki I've talked to, nor do I consider that terribly relevant in most situations. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well A di M, no: not terribly relevant. But AFAICS those abbreviations are far commoner among people much younger than I am, and than our joint interlocutor here is. I don't know most of them, and they are a nuisance. You have made no secret of your youth, I seem to recall; and it is more relevant as a causal factor than gender associations for "Noetica" – thoroughly distracting and annoying mentions of which were recently made at WT:MOS, with you joining in. Neither of us censures the other for these things, I trust. SLLIAT, OK? Noetica^Tea? 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A period of recuperation from your "marathon dashes drama" was well deserved, indeed. No apology necessary. I've been much occupied elsewhere lately, too, and still am.

1. The way you've indicated correct and incorrect examples in the "Dashes" section will just have to do. The ultimate success or failure of neither the WP enterprise in general nor the MoS in particular hardly rests on this matter. To paraphrase the saying about academic politics, the debates on these points are so bitter because the stakes are so small. (For a truly remarkable and egregious recent example, others might wish to see the Great Crêpes vs. Crepes Fracas, which you rescued almost singlehandedly from utter piffle through your exhaustive research and substantial contributions.)

   (For other readers: This link should be to item 13 on the Crêpe Talk page. Click "[show]" in the medium-blue "discussion" header line to expand the box.)

2. Regarding memorable and principles: Ahem. I see. Yes. Well. Quite.
   1. I assumed from the outset that your library of dictionaries and usage guides, as well as your on-line access to them, would dwarf my meager collection, so I had absolutely no intention or desire to provoke a "dueling dictionaries" match with you. But because your reply cites the 2nd sense of "memorable" from OED, I should note that my 1971 OED edition explicitly labels that sense "rare" [italics in the original]. Coming from OED, I took "rare" at face value. As for your reference to Shakespeare and Rushkin, such towering masters of the language can get away with using it, particularly in poetry, in ways the rest of us simply can't in ordinary discourse (e.g., WP Talk pages). If any editors on these pages have, in fact, risen to Shakespeare's or Rushkin's stellar level of literary and linguistic achievement, though, I have yet to make their acquaintance.
   2. In the end the difference between your connotation and mine in both of these cases may be simply a matter of WP:ENVAR. So, "two peoples, separated by a common language" and all that.
   3. But regardless of the merits of your rationales, my query for clarification of your usage in your original comment was in good faith, so what gives me the impression of a rather haughty, chiding tone in your reply seems somewhat ... uh ... indelicate? ... unseemly? ... perhaps a tad uncivil?
3. BTW, I thought you would have gathered from the 2 explicit references to "MWC11" in my comment above that I was already familiar with your very useful compilation of style guide and dictionary abbreviations, so you didn't need to decode "MWNI3" for me in your reply. But it's an entirely different matter with your use of (at best) obscure abbreviations like "TMTCFY"—and now "ITCN", which I don't recognize, either. (Are you just making these up as you go along? WTFO?) Besides, I rather preferred A. di M.'s interpretation of "TMTCFY"; it's clever instead of condescending.
4. Re our separate discussion above of "or dingoes", etc.: I'm still far from satisfied on that matter, but I doubt I'll ever have time to reply to your last post there. Maybe it's best for me just to let that sleeping wild dog (or dingo) lie, instead of risking getting bitch-slapped again. Time to just walk quietly away for now.

Sorry, no time for tea and muffins right now. (You'd probably just find fault with any muffins I brought, anyway.) Must dash. Ta. --Jackftwist (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I appear to come across the ‘easy to remember’ meaning of memorable more often than across the ‘worth remembering’ one, but this might be some cognitive bias due to Italian memorabile also having the latter meaning so when I see the latter I get the point of sentence without noticing the particular word used. Anyway, easy to remember is no less clear, though less concise. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A di M, I think indimenticabile is an option, and it is given for memorable, along with memorabile, in the comprehensive Oxford Paravia. Like unforgettable in English. But both are inadequate: most that is easy to remember is not strictly unforgettable. The same dictionary gives only "memorable" in accounting for memorabile, and that leaves things undecided for both languages. Zanichelli's Ragazzini dictionary (2005 edition) does a little better, giving as parallels in its first definition of memorabile both "memorable" and "unforgettable", distinct from momentous in a second definition. French mémorable leans strongly toward "momentous"; Petit Robert: "Digne d'être conservé dans la mémoire des hommes. → fameux, historique, inoubliable, remarquable."

Jack, yes I made up some abbreviations. I am surprised that you interpret me as clearly treating you with disrespect. That is not intended. I hope you will forgive me if I have seemed a little short with you (though I have answered you at length here, and at great length at WT:MOS). Thanks for your notes on Talk:Crêpe. Please understand that the crêpe adventure, the many-month saga over dashes (have you reviewed the prelude phases?), and present disturbances at WT:MOS like Enric Naval's distortions of history – all of those are a huge drain on my time. There is a big picture here, concerning veracity, due process, and maintenance of established protocols on Wikipedia. I cannot do justice to every issue I see as peripheral, but you will have to concede that I try.

Best wishes as ever.

Noetica^Tea? 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, bilingual dictionaries are sometimes very frustrating. The Oxford Paravia says “[event] memorabile; [person, voice] indimenticabile” which is quite right (OK, literally indimenticabile would be “impossible to forget”, but it's often used in a hyperbolic way), but useless in deciding how to translate memorable password or memorable rules. Actually, I'd just say facile da ricordare, or if I really needed it to be one word I might coin ricordabile and put it in scare quotes because I don't think it's a standard word. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Although sometimes bilingual dictionaries can get us out of a semantic circularity. Ricordabile certainly exists in dictionaries, like this big one online. The text of the entry:

non com. Che si può ricordare
‖ Da ricordarsi, degno di essere ricordato: avvenimenti ricordabili
‖ SIN. memorabile

Hmmm. "Degno ..."; but before that, effectively "suscettibile di essere ricordato", which expression occurs in print of course; and ricordabile gets 402 genuine Google hits in books, many in the "suscettibile" sense. Memorabile in the dictionary excerpted just now:

Degno di memoria: un evento m.; un uomo m.
‖ estens. Tale da essere ricordato per la sua eccezionalità: una vittoria, una sconfitta m.

Note observe and remark (along with remarkable, but not observable) for similar bivalence. Finally, recallable sounds noncelike in English but is dated by OED from 1657, with the definition "That can be recalled" (= "Che si può ricordare"), and not marked as rare.

Noetica^Tea? 23:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

park names

I'll have to dig up the discussion. I thought I already posted the links. Smith River Falls – Fort Halkett Provincial Park is another one. Someone went through and dashed a bunch of BC names, there was a big fight over it, we got official BC govt docs to show they were all hyphenated—or almost all. There were a few with dashes, and those remain dashed. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_119#Official_refs_for_hyphen.2Fdash_for_BC_placenames and at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot_Regional_District. Some like Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission use em dashes rather than spaced en dashes. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been finding a lot of articles where titles and secondary titles of refs are separated by a spaced hyphen/dash. I would think they'd be colons. Is that s.t. we want to recommend, colon rather than dash? The syntax of the Nilotic languages: Themes and variations rather than The syntax of the Nilotic languages – Themes and variations. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, I'm sorry for the late reply. I have wanted little to do with Wikipedia after the long drawn-out task of settling a draft under ArbCom instructions.

Now, I don't say that those Canadian authorities are irrelevant in considering what should be done in Wikipedia articles (especially titles). So far I do not find the hard evidence that the spaced en dash is consistent official usage in the the cases you cite, assuming that we can even make sense of "official usage". What is abundantly clear is that there is a "dominant convention" for names of places – and other proper names like McGraw-Hill, on account of which A di M has rightly amended the MOS guideline. As elsewhere (in the quest for a robust, workable approximation to full consensus), I chose the wording with great care: "By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used ...". "By default" allows some judicious flexibility; but it would be a bad move to articulate things further. The present guideline for en dashes settles almost all disputes over dash-versus-hyphen in advance; or at least it provides a fall-back, long-discussed consensual preference as a point d'appui. We should guard that carefully, against those few who prefer to argue every damn point from first principles at every wretched outpost of the Project, with endless duplication and no centralised register of practice or precedent.

As for colons rather than dashes, already the revised guideline has this at the very start: "Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas); or singly (perhaps instead of a colon)." The case you adduce is like that, isn't it? I think a colon is better there, but a sentence-level dash (em dash, or spaced en dash) is a plausible option. I prefer the colon because it is an established standard for titles; or, to put the matter differently, to separate title from subtitle. Hmmm ... yes, I would support an addition to exclude all em dashes in titles (so reducing conflicts), and therefore also spaced en dashes qua alternatives to em dashes in titles. Colon is better. But please: can we hold off on this, and let the present changes be digested first?

Noetica^Tea? 06:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources were official enough to convince those fighting to abolish dashes from BC place names. We had govt. officials explain this was exactly what they intended, and that the punctuation was part of the official names.

I'm concerned about edit wars over legitimately dashed place names using the current MOS as a deciding factor. I think we should remove Austria-Hungary as an example, because we shouldn't prejudice future discussions there. ("It's even an example in the MOS. It must have a hyphen.") It's not the case that Austria-Hungary is hyphenated in conventions that use dashes, and IMO it is irresponsible of us to suggest it is. I know I said this was a good example earlier, but since then I've looked into it more carefully. Austria–Hungary may be dashed as a dual monarchy just as Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth is, and for two years the WP article was stable with a dash. I'm aware of four such dual states in WP articles, two currently hyphenated and two dashed. I therefore don't think we should present either option as the default, esp. since hyphens go against normal dashing conventions. (Apart from hyphenating or not even punctuating familiar phrases.)

As for dashes vs. colons, they mean opposite things. A colon introduces an explanation, whereas a dash summarizes. From a style guide I picked up a while ago:

These are the colors of the flag: red, white, and blue.

Red, white, and blue—these are the colors of the flag.

Yeah, I hear you about wanting to drop out. I've been paying only peripheral attention recently. — kwami (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In the park mentioned above, it's just the usual case of something named for two entities (likely two communities it serves, or something like that), so logically gets an en dash. Most sources that I see use a spaced hyphen, because an unspaced hyphen binds too tightly and they don't know how to use en dashes. If the official is en dash, that's great. That leaves the spacing issue. The spaces would be more common in Brit style; but in WP style we don't call for them at present, though we did before. Let's see if we're happy settling out there. In summary, it's not much to do with em dash, colon, official usage, or subtitles. Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

En dash question

Re this: are you saying that some style guides that accept the en-dash for the prefix situation explicitly reject it for the suffix situation? Or are they just silent about the suffix situation if they accept the prefix situation? I find it difficult to believe that any style guide would purposefully treat the two situations differently. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, GO. Welcome! I hope you don't mind that I altered the heading to make it more informative.

The matter of en dash versus hyphen is extremely vexed in those cases you raise. Terminology is all over the place, for a start. You spoke of suffixes in your edit at WP:MOS, and because I was constrained in my edit summary I simply followed that. But your example was Boxing Day–only sale. Is only a suffix? It seems to be an adverb, modifying Boxing Day as a modifier of sale. Compare a candidate usage involving a true suffix like -ward: we drove New York–ward.

That aside (and I'll stick with a loose sense of suffix), the guides are extremely uneven in their treatment of any sort of spaced compound that joins with another element, whether "prefix" or "suffix". Some do only mention prefixes for such cases. Ready to hand is Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors (MWM; see "Style guides and other resources" at the top of this page), which at ¶48 of its treatment of compounds (p. 77) provides that:

If a prefix is added to an open compound, the hyphen is often replaced with an en dash in typeset material. [It gives ex–campaign treasurer, post–World War I era.]

No mention there of suffixes, proper or improper. At ¶58 we find a distinction between open compound with a hyphen before a suffix (a Red Cross-like approach, a New York-wide policy) and with no hyphen, but written solid (middle-of-the-roadism, bobby-soxer).

NHR similarly notes the usage post–World War I period in "US style" (3.3.4); but it makes no such note in the section dealing with suffixes (3.3.5). CGEU makes explicit provision for prefixes (quasi–open government policy; p. 140), but nothing parallel for suffixes.

Those are all major guides. There are others that deal equally with prefixes and suffixes, like CMOS16 which is equally cautious for both and prefers rewriting.

In sum, the dash poll showed a great deal of division on this matter. What led to that whole saga was the need to find the most consensual single provision, to avoid as many scattered and replicated RM disputes throughout the Project as possible. With the greatest difficulty I found a single provision that allowed for en dash with a prefix – one that kept it to a minimum, and strongly favoured rewriting. Since the suffix case was hardly discussed at all, and not presented for voting, and favoured by fewer major guides, it seemed reasonable not to make a provision for it. I suggest you raise the matter at WT:MOS, though. There may be a need to give the suffix cases some grudging acceptance. I will argue strongly against optionality; and indeed, I will argue that the en dash is not necessary to make things clear except in extremely rare cases, even for prefixes. Capital letters hold the open compound together; and when there are no capitals, the open compound can be bridged with a hyphen (country music, but she was country-music-proof, and could only enjoy Mozart).

Tea next time? Noetica^Tea? 12:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you—that is a very helpful and informative answer. It's true, my precise terminology is somewhat off, since I'm a relative novice in the minutiae of style guiding, but I do try. I have no problem with your reverting my additions; I had assumed they were comparable cases covered by the same rule (or at least the same logic) but see that it does need to be dealt with separately at least in these initial stages. Whether or not it can be covered by the same point in the MOS is another issue. (I don't mind at all about the header change.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Google tutorial

I saw your contributions to Talk:Crêpe, and I request that you write a tutorial on using Google search result numbers. Many of us, including me, could benefit from such a tutorial.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

O Wavelength! I should, and probably will when I have the time. There are many things on Wikipedia that I want to follow up; and I must not ignore approaches from Wikifriends. Forgive me for my preoccupation with other matters.

Noetica^Tea? 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your situation, because many things on Wikipedia compete for my attention, also. If you make a copy of it in project namespace, it can be reciprocally linked with Wikipedia:Search engine test.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson and Arbcom

Hi. As I'm sure you know, you were named by Pmanderson recently on my talk page as one of a party of editors with whom he has some protracted conflict. Subsequent to discussion of that conversation at AN/I, I have decided to file a case with ArbCom to address issues that I'm not sure AN/I is capable of dealing with. Because you were mentioned in the post that started this particular grass fire, I'm thinking of you as a primary candidate to list as a party to the arbitration.

Are you okay with that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bacchus, proceedings at ArbCom are long and arduous. I have kept away from them as much as I could. While I have not the slightest fear for my own situation, the time and effort involved make entanglement with ArbCom a last resort, and one that is not necessary in the present WP:ANI case over PMAnderson's behaviour.

I hope that the common-denominator preference will be put into effect: an enduring ban for him, from WP:MOS and associated areas.

You're very welcome at my talkpage. Stay for tea next time? (Bring Stroopwafels.)

Noetica^Tea? 23:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ampersand in article title

Hi Noetica, I see you have good insight in WP:MOS. A question on the use of ampersand in article titles. As long as "&" is not hard-coded in the name like AT&T, is it right that the preference is than to change "&" into "and" for article titles? I see sometimes the mix of "&" used in the logo's and the marketing names, but "and" is used in the official name of the organization. In this case my suggestion would be: article name with "and" and creating also a redirect with the name using "&". Is this a correct understanding? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 12:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Schreyp: I think you have it pretty well right. Many sources freely substitute "and" for "&" in catalogues, databases, and other listings where that species of "alphabetic" uniformity is desirable. Amazon often does that for book titles. But Wikipedia article titles are different. They must follow the sources more closely, and not be distracted by logos and the like. Often the ampersand is a feature of a logo's design; but logos are not names. We need to go to the accurate source itself, rather than believe intermediaries like Amazon (and Google in other ways) that distort the original form. Redirects? The more of those, the better.

I hope that helps.

Noetica^Tea? 23:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation of my understanding. It is not that clear from MOS:&. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 09:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised your concern, SchreyP. Perhaps the wording in WP:MOS needs some fine tuning. I'll look into that. Noetica^Tea? 22:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Friction and MoS

Some thoughts on what you said at ANI: "Friction accompanies every manual of style". That's, interesting... In my experience, in a professional environment people have a fixed manual of style (changing slightly through different editions, and I'm sure behind the scenes there are some arguments by the editors of such publications, but surely nothing to match what we see here?) and stick with it, adapting their writing to the different publications they write for that have different style requirements.

It is the constant shifting and changing of Wikipedia's Manual of Style that arguably causes problems, as writers on Wikipedia are forced to constantly shift and change with it (or have scripts run to achieve consistency). The content of Wikipedia should be a work-in-progress, but why should the manual of style similarly be a never-ending work-in-progress? That's no way to write an encyclopedia. I skimmed WT:MOS recently and noticed this: "We are rarely dealing with a controversy between professional style and crappy style; we are dealing with points on which there are several professional styles". Letting arguments over different professional styles cause instability in the end product (what the reader sees) is, ironically, unprofessional.

I remain convinced that if there was a proper community-wide RfC on the Manual of Style (not some small aspect of it, which most people ignored), the results (if the right questions were asked) might surprise some commenting here. I don't think there has ever even been a basic discussion of the principles underlying a manual of style and how those principles work in an open-editing environment - the assumption has always been that an manual of style is needed and that the people active there are shaping it in a way that best suits the needs of the encyclopedia as a whole (which is different from attempting to attain some perfect Manual of Style, or arguing for the individual aspects of style that an individual editor prefers).

I see from the banner at the top of your talk page that you see yourself as specialising in MoS issues, and I've often admired the sheer knowledge you bring to such issues, but I sometimes worry that there is a danger of things becoming too esoteric. Most people writing here just want some simple guidance, with some brief explanation if they are not quite sure what the reason for something is. Those wanting in-depth discussion of manuals of style, or to discuss different manuals of style, might be better served by one of the many internet fora that exist to discuss such things, rather than discussing them on Wikipedia. If you've ever seen the Wikipedia:Reference Desk, that has at times teetered between being a useful adjunct to Wikipedia and a distraction. Is it possible that WP:MOS teeters between being a reference desk for MOS issues and a useful guide to Wikipedia editors? And given the open-editing nature of Wikipedia, is a stable Manual of Style ever possible? Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, please see User:Noetica/Archive5 (sections 1–6, and 13)

and User:Wavelength/Miscellaneous information/Discussions.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Carcharoth. (And Wavelength: good to see you here, as always.) We agree on a great deal of this, at least. Some responses:

"It is the constant shifting and changing of Wikipedia's Manual of Style that arguably causes problems, as writers on Wikipedia are forced to constantly shift and change with it (or have scripts run to achieve consistency)."

Absolutely! The churning of content at WP:MOS has been a genuine problem, though not so much in recent times. I'm all for stability, after hard-won consensus through wide consultation and calm discussion of the options. The recently concluded dash-and-hyphen epic, though, confirmed that this had already been achieved rather well. The relevant guideline, WP:DASH, is now much better expressed – but the content is very little altered. Changes in the expression can themselves be a nuisance; but that's a much smaller problem.

"Letting arguments over different professional styles cause instability in the end product (what the reader sees) is, ironically, unprofessional."

Sure! My own approach? I avidly collect manuals of style, dictionaries, and related material in print or on CD-ROMs, and subscribe to online sources; I read, study, and consult these, and bring the results of my analysis to WT:MOS. Not everyone does that, and this is an area where everyone is an expert. It's unhelpful when people hold forth on the most difficult points of style after a quick Google search fortifies their unexamined opinions. But that's Wikipedia, and that's opinion on style.

"I remain convinced that if there was a proper community-wide RfC on the Manual of Style (not some small aspect of it, which most people ignored), the results (if the right questions were asked) might surprise some commenting here."

I'm all in favour of that. As I say at present WP:ANI case over PMAnderson's behaviour, WT:MOS really does welcome wide community involvement, despite the rhetoric about cliques and cabals. The dash saga was wonderful in that way at least. But one thing at a time; and let's keep present behavioural issues separate from this larger topic. "Might surprise"? I agree. I predict there would be landslide support for a Manual that actually guides, as the present version does admirably well. Those who support MOS do not shout their support from the rooftops; a few who are politically against it do so incessantly. Sustained and balanced consideration would be great.

"... but I sometimes worry that there is a danger of things becoming too esoteric. Most people writing here just want some simple guidance, with some brief explanation if they are not quite sure what the reason for something is."

Yes, again. The analytical work behind the scenes can be esoteric and exhausting, but the result has to be lucid and simple. I am a strong advocate of "singular" guidelines that settle on one recommendation, after consideration of all options. (See how WP:DASH achieves that in almost every respect that affects titles; a great achievement, and one that will dramatically diminish wrangling at contested RMs.) The complexity behind the scenes should stay behind the scenes. Unfortunately (and not naming him here would be artificial), editors like PMAnderson have abused the brevity of some guidelines at RMs and the like. That's what sparked the whole Mexican~American War saga. That's one reason for some of the complexity in guidelines. MOS editors talk constantly about how to solve this. There is hope, on a couple of fronts.

"Is it possible that WP:MOS teeters between being a reference desk for MOS issues and a useful guide to Wikipedia editors? And given the open-editing nature of Wikipedia, is a stable Manual of Style ever possible?"

I am familiar with the reference desk, and was once a regular at the Language desk. Funny you should raise this. WT:MOS has served as an advice service for Wikipedia style issues; but given the personalities involved this has not been conducted well. See a fine example from earlier this year. (We might get some relief soon.) But I think the community should eventually consider a separate desk, parallel to Language and the others, dedicated to style issues, naming issues, and everything related. The existing talkpages are not well suited. But it would be a bit of a bunfight, don't you think? Best set aside for now.

Is a stable Manual of Style ever possible? Some of us work hard to approximate one. But as you suggest, given the nature of the Project it can only ever be a dynamic equilibrium. Well, better dynamic than dead! And once again, I challenge anyone to show us a more comprehensive, more considered, more realistic, guide to best-practice style for collaborative web use. Anywhere. On many points, MOS holds up brilliantly against major guides in print – a tribute to the Wikipedian way, and some reward for the immense effort that goes into its development.

Noetica^Tea? 00:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I fear we may agree less than you think. At least on the way forward. At the links Wavelength provided, I saw: In what respects and to what extent should there be flexibility, and by what means should it be controlled? and In what respects and to what extent should there be stability, and by what means should it be controlled? I think the key misunderstanding there is desiring to control things. Constrain would be a better word. See also Wikipedia:Consensus can change. One of the things people often misunderstand about consensus is that they think there is a need to build in mechanisms to avoid later change (i.e. ensure stability), when in fact things should be left so that they can change in future. I read through this section and the one that followed it, and it looks like that was inconclusive to me (not helped by some overly formal language 'putative extinctions of consensus'? and use of dictionary definitions - if you have to resort to a dictionary to explain something, it means the discussion has become too esoteric).

My view is that consensus has to be current - you can't point to discussions from years ago and claim current consensus from that, no matter if the aim of such a claim is to maintain 'a robust, stable, and enlightened Manual of Style' ('enlightened' is a tad evangelical). Consensus can change regardless of what the current Manual of Style says, and is based on actual practice by current editors, not past discussions that may be from years ago. The Manual of Style tries to prescribe consensus, rather than document it, and that is the inherent tension that comes when trying to document consensus for a document that seeks to prescribe.

I'll also expand here on what I just said elsewhere: "I have deep misgivings about the immense work being put into building up a Manual of Style that may one day come crashing down under its own weight (my view is that a simpler MoS is needed, not a more complicated one that becomes increasingly inaccessible to all except those best-versed in its intricacies)." It is a laudable goal to aim for "more comprehensive, more considered, more realistic, guide to best-practice style for collaborative web use. Anywhere. On many points, MOS holds up brilliantly against major guides in print". But that is an unsustainable goal in an open-editing environment. The current editors of the Manual of Style won't be around forever, and large edifices built up like this eventually disintegrate when no-one is left to maintain them.

If you do want to bring together the best practices of a variety of style guides, I would urge that you initiate a wide-ranging discussion about what the current community of editors (that is editors of articles, not editors of the manual of style) want from a manual of style. Not small isolated discussions on obscure aspects. Ask whether editors want exact guidance, or a range of options (i.e. more flexibility). Ask whether people refer constantly to the manual of style, or only when they are unsure of themselves, or whether they largely ignore it. Ask whether they leave it to others to tidy things up, or whether they try and teach themselves how to follow Wikipedia's MoS. Ask how the manual of style can be improved, and whether people want a large and complicated MoS or a stripped down simple one (or even both, if that is possible). Also, the summaries at WP:MOS are frequently not consistent with the subpages, which is annoying.

And also try and see how things work in practice. Is the MoS used as guidance for editors, or is it used as a rulebook while tweaking lots of articles with scripts and bots? Is it used to educate editors, or as a way to enforce a style with minimal discussion? And also consider the reactions of new editors when they first encounter MoS guidance and first try and read WP:MoS. I suspect some dive right in and are enthralled by it, while others quail before it (I would put prominent wording up front pointing new editors to a simplified page). Essentially, I think that limits need to be placed on the Manual of Style, and that it needs to be kept as accessible as possible, and as maintainable as possible without a need for 'esoteric and exhausting analytical work behind the scenes'. In the latter situation, you either have discussion concentrated in the hands of a few (with the sources and time to carry out this analytical work), or ongoing conflicts between those that disagree about the fundamental approach needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, thanks for your continued attention to some important issues, which really do need to be pursued elsewhere with more voices heard. Some responses, again:

"I fear we may agree less than you think. At least on the way forward."

Don't assume my disagreement with the points you have made, or will make. There are competing principles, and many questions here are to be resolved practically by compromise: greys, not black and white. That's Wikipedia, right? I can accord weight to points on one side and on the other.

"At the links Wavelength provided, I saw: In what respects and to what extent should there be flexibility, ..."

Yes, those words occur; but you did not provide a link and you did not reveal that those were Wavelength's own words from 2009. I tracked them down here, in a section Wavelength started with the heading "Designing a system for establishing and recording consensus decisions" (a very worthwhile goal, don't you agree?). Some context might be useful. Apart from the broader setting (well worth exploring also), here is the list of propositions and questions that Wavelength submitted for consideration, in full:

Flexibility is important for when there is a need for change.
Stability is important for when there is a need for keeping the status quo.
In what respects and to what extent should there be flexibility, and by what means should it be controlled?
In what respects and to what extent should there be stability, and by what means should it be controlled?
If an editor (new or old) raises an old issue, we can save time by consulting a record of consensus decisions. If he or she mentions a new perspective on an old issue, there can be a new discussion.
Who wants to work for an employer who changes the rules every week?
Who wants to work for a capricious customer who changes his decision every five minutes?
... [elaboration omitted]
Who wants to rely on a reference book (for example, a dictionary, a cookbook, or a train schedule) whose inkprints reassemble themselves during the night to spell out new instructions?

Lest anyone think something sinister was afoot. ☺

"I think the key misunderstanding there is desiring to control things. Constrain would be a better word. See also Wikipedia:Consensus can change."

Do you think so? The context was recording consensus, and taking note of changes in direction, in a churning sea of discussion. Would you take the man at the rudder to task for wanting to steer a course? You diagnose a "key misunderstanding"? I don't.

"One of the things people often misunderstand about consensus is that they think there is a need to build in mechanisms to avoid later change (i.e. ensure stability), when in fact things should be left so that they can change in future."

Why think that this insight was lacking, in those long deliberations? Anyway, I remind you of what you wrote above: "It is the constant shifting and changing of Wikipedia's Manual of Style that arguably causes problems [...] The content of Wikipedia should be a work-in-progress, but why should the manual of style similarly be a never-ending work-in-progress?" So when you have a perfect solution to the complex nest of issues that you recapitulate from WT:MOS, and a reconciliation of the irreconcilable, do please post it there to the benefit of the Project. (Also let us know when you have quantum theory and general relativity harmonised. We'd like that too.)

"... not helped by some overly formal language 'putative extinctions of consensus'? and use of dictionary definitions ..."

You might help out here. I seem to recall some exploration of consensus in dictionaries, sometime; but I can't immediately see appeals to dictionary definitions in that discussion – only on other matters in the same archive. You'd want discussions of language and style to refer to dictionaries, wouldn't you? And let me assure you: use of "putative" presents no difficulty at WT:MOS, any more more than your use of "laudable" (see an excerpt below). I'm sure you don't want to control my use of language, any more than I want to constrain yours.

"My view is that consensus has to be current ..."

Nu? You also point to problems caused by "constant shifting and changing".

"It is a laudable goal to aim for "more comprehensive, more considered, more realistic, guide to best-practice style for collaborative web use. Anywhere. On many points, MOS holds up brilliantly against major guides in print". But that is an unsustainable goal in an open-editing environment. ..."

Ah, but that is no mere "goal", unsustainable or otherwise. It is an actuality. Take the challenge: show me a better one. And miraculously, it has been achieved in an open-editing environment. Takes hard work, by many editors.

"... The current editors of the Manual of Style won't be around forever, and large edifices built up like this eventually disintegrate when no-one is left to maintain them."

And your point?

"If you do want to bring together the best practices of a variety of style guides, I would urge that you initiate a wide-ranging discussion about what the current community of editors (that is editors of articles, not editors of the manual of style) want from a manual of style. Not small isolated discussions on obscure aspects. Ask whether editors want [... .] Also, the summaries at WP:MOS are frequently not consistent with the subpages, which is annoying."

Here you raise problems that are of perennial concern at WT:MOS, as recorded in its 125 very large archives. You would urge me, or "us"? I would urge you! WP:MOS belongs to no one in particular, and is the community's resource. I donate my skills there more than anywhere else, and others are dedicated also. I'm sure editors frequenting that page would welcome any genuine help from newcomers, just as they were delighted to have wide input from the community concerning dashes and hyphens recently. Bring it on: in orderly and collegial fashion, respecting the community's need for a stable Manual of Style, of which you remind us above.

"And also try and see how things work in practice."

And try not to lecture me, as if you are somehow streets ahead on all this. I for one am constantly concerned with what works in practice.

"Essentially, I think that limits need to be placed on the Manual of Style, and that it needs to be kept as accessible as possible, and as maintainable as possible without a need for 'esoteric and exhausting analytical work behind the scenes'. In the latter situation, you either have discussion concentrated in the hands of a few (with the sources and time to carry out this analytical work), or ongoing conflicts between those that disagree about the fundamental approach needed here."

Of course there must be "limits" on the Manual of Style. There are already, and they are of many sorts. For a start, it has status as a Wikipedia guideline, not Wikipedia policy. You quote my word "esoteric", which I in fact quoted from you (see your first post above). You might also quote my continuation: "... but the result has to be lucid and simple." People assume that recommendations toward consistent style must be an easy matter, because everyone writes, yes? But it is not like that. We are all made of subatomic particles, and our lives might ultimately be reducible to their movements and interactions. That sort of intimate connexion does not make for understanding of nuclear physics. We all write: but not every writer is a skilled copyeditor, and not every skilled copyeditor is a skilled distiller of consensual recommendations for style. You want those editing MOS to read the sources and discuss them, or not? Many of the sources are "esoteric" and forbidding. That's not anyone's fault, it's the just the way of things. But dialogue at WT:MOS should not generally be forbidding. It is not! I say to all editors: Come along, with an open mind. You may teach something – and you may certainly also learn something. I do, all the time.

Noetica^Tea? 22:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving a brief note here to apologise for not being around last week (you asked me to strike part of what I said at that discussion, which has now closed, so I'm posting here instead). The above discussion was interesting. Maybe we can continue it another time when it is clearer what the function of the MoS should or shouldn't be. Presently, one of my over-riding concerns is whether the MoS has become a 'belief system' for some. Other concerns centre on plans for 'harmonisation' that involve mass script- and bot-editing of literally all Wikipedia articles. My view is that this goal, while it might seem laudable, actually destabilises things as a critical mass of editors previously unaware of any issue get drawn into arguing about it when they see bot or script edits on their watchlist. Anyway, I should leave this discussion until I have more time, but I am about to make the same argument in a few other places, so feel free to respond there or here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

example of en dash in non-tech book

Hi Noetica,

I thought this was an interesting example:

For reasons that I, as a non–native islander, can never fully understand, the Library Fair is an unspoken homecoming day

—Mike Brown, How I Killed Pluto, accompanying his wife back to her home-town island

Clearly meant to distinguish one who is not a native islander from an islander who is non-native. Maybe even a good example for the MOS. — kwami (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A great find, Kwami. A Google search turns up nothing similar with those components ("non native islander"). I'll look into this further when I have time. A few of us who normally attend to MOS matters have had our attention diverted to WP:ANI, at this section. Noetica^Tea? 23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it's best to use examples from existing texts, when possible, rather than making ones up. Wiktionary, for example: some of the illustrative examples are absolutely horrid. Even with the style guides we've used for sources at MOS, some people have commented that many of the examples are things that no-one is likely to ever use.

As for Anderson ANI, well, have you ever been given castor oil? I've been avoiding it, but suppose I should see what nonsense he's claiming now. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Television, human values, and Wikipedia

It has been reported that television is now teaching children to value fame foremost, whereas benevolence is being devalued. Please see Popular TV shows teach children fame is most important value, UCLA psychologists report / UCLA Newsroom. You can imagine the values that (some) young people bring with them when they edit Wikipedia. (People of all ages are impressionable, but children especially so.)
—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Wavelength. Interesting reading. The punctuation of "popular with 9- to 11-year-olds" is incidentally worth noting. By a mechanical application of certain principles it might be judged unsound; but I support it.

Noetica^Tea? 08:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Posthumous

Hi, could we have your advice? This and this. Tony (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done ☺. Noetica^Tea? 08:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The box at the top of your user talk page

The absolute positioning causes “wrong” layout in page diffs, at least on my browser (the box overlaps the diff text, and there is a large amount of whitespace before the rest of the page). This could be solved by removing the <div style="right: 0em; position: absolute; top: +0em; center: +0em; "> at its beginning and the </div> at its end and removing the margin-top: 18em in the navbox below. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Grazie mille. I don't understand all of those details, but I did what you suggested and I have no problem with the result. One day I'll learn these things systematically. Noetica^Tea? 01:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No prob... (Just curious, though: why had you put that mark-up there in the first place?) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 17:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I just copied it from somewhere, and fiddled the details montecarlically rather than with any deep understanding. Heuristically, saving the algorithmic rigour for more weighty matters. Noetica^Tea? 04:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalitis spreading

Hi, I see you chimed in at Officer of the Deck (oh, that Deck). Capitalising job-names seems to be a sleeping giant at WP, and I note that we have a long-established house style at WP:CAPS not to do this, or we'll end up with Garbage Collectors. And in some areas, such as IT, management, and business, the disease has spread to the initial uppercasing of Example and Business in the middle of sentences, can you believe. Thx. Tony (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's a shlepping giant, and it needs straightening up. So many RMs are to do with caps, which are the "new hyphen-en dash problem". We're going to need a systematic solution. Noetica^Tea? 03:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

dash example

Just came across "the Italians built a World War I–style fort in El Tag in the mid-1930s". With a hyphen, I found I couldn't immediately parse it. — kwami (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you meant in an external source. But I see that you changed it in a WP article. Yes, there will always be problem cases. Also, pi is irrational. Nothing much can be done about it. Hey, look at these cases, from a Googlebooks search on "post World War II style": [1], [2], [3], [4]. Thought you'd like those ones.

Meanwhile, see the RM at Talk:An Post–Sean Kelly‎.

Noetica^Tea? 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a problem, just a good example of where I thought an en dash improved legibility.

And yes, the "post-WWII-style" examples are amusing! — kwami (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

But there is a problem. You are inclined one way in all this – a predominantly American way, which others find quite unnatural and which might have them trying to parse the construction with a sentence-level dash. Accommodating one set of expectations thwarts another set. Anyway, the examples I linked to show that sooner or later we inevitably strike constructions for which no one has any complete guidelines. How would you punctuate "a post World War II style house"? On what principles? Here are some rational options, choosing this logical structure from among the options: {a [(|post /World War II/| style) house]}:

• a post–World War II–style house

[as linked, but with sanction from no guide that I know of]

• a post World War II–style house

[en dash at the "highest level" only]

• a post-World-War-II-style house

[hyphens joining all compounded elements that may ever call for them]

• a post–World-War-II style house

[hierarchically determined en dash, hyphens, and space]

Still hoping for a rational pi (or certainty that γ is transcendental)? You might object that the first punctuation here (two en dashes) is indeed covered. But no. With the assumed logical structure, the second en dash is applied to an en-dashed construction (sic). Is that covered anywhere? I seem to recall one guide that might want it (at least with the higher-level en dash at the left); but I'm pretty sure it does not give an instance that has internal spaces. I'll check.

By the way, how's your Akkadian?

Noetica^Tea? 06:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to me. You'd write "a post-war-style house". With spacing, the hyphens become dashes. I don't know if that's American, but the last I checked it was in the MOS. I don't see anything complicated about it.

No Akkadian.

BTW, you might want to check one- to six-star rank. We have an editor who says it goes against "reality" to hyphenate or spell out the numbers, though a search of GBooks shows that 90% of sources, including military sources, do just that. Since there are hundreds of articles that link to each of those, the formatting there has non-local effects. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Come now, we both know that doesn't work. Don't change the example to avoid the difficulty. Anyone can do that! As we tell the reflex-rewording advocates, rewording is not always an option – in transcribing spoken English, for example; or to match parallel structures in a sequence. Heard on the radio a couple of weeks ago (Australian ABC local radio):

"There was a near~fatal~railway~accident ..."

In fact, there was no railway accident. There nearly was one, and it would have been fatal. How do you write it down? The structure (to use my earlier trick) is {a [near (fatal |railway /accident/|)]}, ugye? One normal solution:

"There was a near fatal railway accident ..."

Of course this works; but it relies on firm shared understandings of hyphens, en dashes, and their absences. This solution may easily be read as a catachrestic variant of:

"There was a near-fatal railway accident ..."

The speaker actually seemed aware of the difficulty, and paused emphatically between near and fatal. But such a pause cannot be represented with the resources of standard punctuation.

You do not answer the specifics of my objection to "a post–World War II–style house". "With spaces" doesn't cover it. What would be the rule that delivers that solution for that construction, as distinct from closely related other constructions?

No Akkadian here either; but I've taken to browsing through things like this fabulous little dictionary, which I self-indulgently picked up from Amazon. Great to track the roots internally, and to compare them with the little that I know of Arabic and Hebrew roots. A few more decades would be useful – to pursue in depth, not peruse in doubt. O, and I recommend Complete Babylonian: A Teach Yourself Guide. That series has evolved beautifully. When I was little, the Teach Yourself series lacked even Hungarian; but look at it now.

I'll investigate the star-rank matter.

Noetica^Tea? 23:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, I didn't change the example. I simplified the structure to illustrate the construction contained in the example. The solution is simple, unless I'm missing something: just as you change the hyphen to a dash when going from "pre-war era" to "pre–World War II era", so you would change the hyphens to dashes going from "a post-war-style house", following basic hyphenation rules, to "a post–World War II–style house". I fail to see any relevant difference.

If "a near~fatal~railway~accident" isn't an accident, then it is ungrammatical in my variety of English, and you can't make something ungrammatical grammatical just by hyphenating it. "A near-fatal railway accident" is the only reading that makes any sense to me. If it was only nearly an accident, then we would need to say that it was nearly an accident: "There nearly was / was nearly a fatal railway accident". If it's a quote and we can't change the wording, we add [sic], just as we would for any infelicitous quotation. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You did change the example. "A post~war~style house" removes a relevant element from "a post~World~War~II~style house". There are MOS rules (at WP:HYPHEN) to cover the first, yielding your "a post-war-style house". There are no MOS rules to cover the second in a way that will yield "a post–World War II–style house". The nearest current rule calls for an en dash "instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix to a compound that includes a space". That would give us the first en dash, but not the second. I know you think the rule should be different, and I know how you would want it, for the easier cases like "a World War II–style house". Please articulate the exact rule you would have for the present more complex case, and also for "a quasi~post~World~War~II~style house", and others that might turn up. We can't cover everything that people actually say. We have to admit that punctuation is a limited toolkit.

Now, you write:

If "a near~fatal~railway~accident" isn't an accident, then it is ungrammatical in my variety of English, and you can't make something ungrammatical grammatical just by hyphenating it.

What? You must then think that "a near accident" is ungrammatical. But a Googlebooks search yields 405 genuine hits. "Near collision" (408 Googlebooks hits) is in the current OED under "near". There are also "near victories", "near failures", "near wins", "near losses", ... none of which are victories, failures, wins, or losses simpliciter. The privative use of near is well-founded, though it is not to be confused with the usage in "near miss". A near miss is indeed a miss tout court. (OED confuses the two senses. I must email them about that.) I would actually transcribe what I heard on the radio with "a near fatal railway accident", even though some writers have a hyphen in "a near-accident" (see my Googlebooks search, above). I would be uncomfortable with "a near~fatal~railway~accident story", but I would render it like this:

a "near fatal railway accident" story

And you?

Noetica^Tea? 23:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If a "near fatal railway accident" means a "nearly fatal railway accident", then I am inclined to render it as a "near[ly] fatal railway accident” (as in a "near[ly] fatal railway accident” story), with the gloss ly in square brackets. A fatal railway accident which happens near a specific place of reference can be a "near fatal railway accident".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, Wavelength. I would favour simply "near-fatal railway accident", if that is what is clearly meant. By the way, I am a little surprised at your use of which in your last sentence. I thought you were among those of us who distinguish which and that in relative constructions. No matter! Noetica^Tea? 01:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

For the first (disregarding the idiocy of treating prefixes differently than suffixes), "style" isn't a suffix, it's an element of a compound. We explain the "prefix" thing as being because the do not have an independent existence (just like suffixes), which is not the case for "style". I see that we no longer cover that in the MOS, but that of course is an inadequacy of the current MOS. Since the MOS doesn't cover it, we'd need to use basic common sense in extending the MOS to cover a parallel situation.

Now you're changing the wording. "A near accident" is not a valid parallel. In the "near X" construction, the X is AFAIK always a word. Inserting an attributive between "near" and X doesn't work. A "near railway accident", for example, could only be understood (in my idiolect, at least) as a slightly dysfluent "nearby railway accident". And since "near-fatal" is itself a lexicalized expression, that reading overrides any sense that it could be dysfluent for something else. At least, I cant' think of anything you can put between the "near" and X, though there may be a small set of items.

It actually would be an excellent example/question to post on Language Log. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

First, of course I discriminate as you do between suffixes and elements like "~like" (see caveats earlier on this talkpage); but I do think the situation is more fluid. SOED has entries for "-cephalic", "-culture", and indeed "-like" as suffixes; and one can suffix an element that is not a suffix sensu stricto, ugye? We need to think about grammaticalisation here. That thought, think next about "idiocy". At MOS we needed to carve something like consensus out of doxastic chaos. We can perhaps do better than we have done; but that is not certain or straightforward.

Second, I invite you to consider a Googlebooks search on "a near * collision". Among the hits:

• "a near mid-air collision"
• "to determine whether a near midair collision did actually occur" (!)
• "a narrow escape from a near fatal collision" (strange and ambiguous)
• "We had a near miss collision with a freighter" (strange indeed)
• "an asteroid-dubbed '2002MN'-/had a near miss collision with Earth" (sic, for the punctuation which I checked in the scanned snippet; "/" marks a linebreak)
• "a near head-on collision" (surely ambiguous out of context)
• "a near grazing collision" (surely ambiguous; apparently more likely to be non-privative)
• "a near central collision"
• "a near disastrous collision of vehicles"
• "a near auto collision"
• "far in excess of programmed speed, into a near disastrous collision with one of the derelict ships before being brought back under control"
• "a near triple collision of a binary with two single stars"
• "for the collinear three body problem that after a near-triple collision, two particles form a binary while the third is expelled"
• "This meant a near frontal collision with the Berlinale award ceremony"
• "A near side-collision event occurs as a car from the other side of intersection suddenly puts on the brakes within the distance of 0.5 meter from the car that violates the red light signal."
• "A popular theory of the formation of the planets, for instance, was the tidal hypothesis, which stated that the Earth and its sister planets were wrenched from the Sun by a near fatal collision with another star"

Third, I will have nothing to do with Language Log, as long as they have a Pinochet-like way of silently disappearing commenters; and as long as they have a crypto-prescriptivist way of glibly classifying some constructions as clearly grammatical, and others as clearly ungrammatical, on alarmingly flimsy or entirely absent evidence. What is "grammatical", and what is not, in the selections I present above? Not an easy question. And punctuation has to deal with them all – at least in transcription.

Noetica^Tea? 01:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely about things being ambiguously affixes in reality, or at least on a cline of lexicalization. But not according to the MOS, where the reason we give for prefixes behaving differently is that they have no independent existence. I never did like that explanation, though for all I know it actually is the reasoning behind the conventions.

You have some good examples of "near Y X". But note that many of them are so ambiguous as to not only be a model of what to avoid in prose, but to be objectionable even in quotations unless we absolutely could not avoid them. They mostly seem dysfluent. "A near disastrous collision of vehicles" tells me that there was a collision that was near-disastrous. I wouldn't read it any other way unless the context forced it, and then I'd wonder how the writer got away without having an editor. For "a near fatal collision with another star", I can speculate that this was a conflation of "near fatal" with "near collision"; all sorts of odd constructions pop up in stream-of-consciousness writing, which is one of the reasons formal written English differs from spoken English. What's grammatical in spoken English, where you have recourse to intonation for all manner of functions, is different than what's grammatical in written English.

"Near-miss collision" is actually pretty common, but it's not an exception to the pattern: it's the "near X" construction used attributively, and all sorts of things can replace "collision".

I don't think we can or should have conventions on how to properly punctuate bad English. Although I disagree with rewording a passage just to avoid punctuation that someone doesn't like, we do need to reword passages that are ambiguous or incoherent. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:EN

Thanks. I had not realised those tail end Google books results were false. I will correct the numbers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe they were correct.

There's a problem with http://books.google.co.uk/advanced_book_search:

"of the passover sacrifice" 1,810 ends "page 43 of 421 results"

"passover sacrifice" 10,300 ends "page 42 of 412 results"

Some kind of rounding down is happening on the last page of Google books results. The result for above should not be identical.

Can you explain this? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how you've configured your searches. I'll answer at Talk:Korban_Pesach, where the problem is currently relevant. Noetica^Tea? 22:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All Google results are estimates. But the returns are not the same as the estimates, except with small numbers of hits. It's not that those other thousands of hits are invalid, but only that we can't verify them. Rather like a return with no available preview. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The large numbers one sees on the first page, preceded by "about", are indeed mere estimates. They have no "validity" other than as estimates, based on Google's hidden techniques that are not based on hits that it just fails to report. Do you think that the numbers are approximately right in most cases? There are logical grounds for thinking otherwise. See here. Noetica^Tea? 04:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if they're in the ballpark or not. But then I don't know that the numbers they cut down to when you go to the last page are in the ballpark either. The fact that the number of returns is not proportional to the number of hits makes me suspicious that neither is reliable. — kwami (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The number of returns is not in the ballpark.[5] (IIRC, Google first picks 1000 pages which might match the query through a quick-and-dirty probabilistic algorithm, and then checks one of these at a time to see which ones actually match the query.) In any event, since Google queries often (but not always) match synonyms and alternate spellings, the numbers are nearly completely useless for corpus linguistics, even if they were correct.
― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cradle Mountain~Lake St Clair National Park

You may be interested in the hyphenation of the article featured in today’s picture of the day. That article is Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(I am changing the hyphen to a tilde in the heading of this section.) The name is hyphenated in a few places in the article besides the title. The official website is relevant also.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a worry. But WP:DASH (under my stewardly hand in the last phases of the Great Dashfest of 2011) came to support adoption "by default" of a hyphen in such cases. That's bound to be controversial, and there is no simple and rational alternative that will avoid unending, bitterly contested RMs. A default is defeasible, of course. But on what grounds, here? Compare absence of apostrophes in geographical names: inconsistent with other usage, and sometimes misleading. But best followed faithfully. Noetica^Tea? 09:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Genderless pronouns (and nouns!)

It seems to me that some people will eventually need to be identified (by themselves and others) with genderless pronouns and even genderless nouns!

• Sex and Gender Diverse Passport Applicants
  

—Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would line up for such a revolution. Hungarian gets it right with pronouns: if the plural ők means "they" regardless of gender, why should there be any concern about ő, which is the equally genderless singular? The Mandarin Chinese word tā means "he", "she", or "it", and it used to be represented by only one character – until about a century ago, when Chinese academics were shamed by Eurocentric understandings of what is "proper", in a civilised and developed language, into providing at least a written distinction: 他 (tā, "he"), 她 (tā, "she"), 它 (tā, "it").

Noetica^Tea? 10:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

unsing a capitalization in the link and a different one on the target article

Noetica, regarding the lowercasing of several links, why did you lowercase also the links whose target articles are uppercased? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought you would be a supporter of consistency within an article, Enric, even if you plainly oppose the most basic sorts of consistency across articles. Why should some titles of the form "X's law" have "law" capped and some not? Every publisher (understanding that term broadly to include Wikipedia) sets rational standards for uniformity in such matters, and does not seek to emulate the mosaic of approaches used in the work of other publishers. You obviously favour capitals where possible; this is counter to the first principle laid out at WP:MOSCAPS, which is the relevant style resource for this question:

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.

And you choose to ignore the most relevant of the specific principles on that page, too:

In science and mathematics, only proper names that are part of a name for an idea should be capitalized (Hermitian matrix, Lorentz transformation). A small number of exceptions exist (abelian group).

I would quibble with the linguistic detail in that, but the message is unambiguous. Clearly "law" qualifies here. Sturgeon's law may be a joke, but its name at least follows the pattern of a genuine law "in science", and it is "part of a name for an idea" that is not itself a proper name.

It would be helpful if you would abandon your partisan campaign, or at least wage it at one location rather than wasting many editors time at piecemeal RMs that are destined to reduce the utility and general quality of Wikipedia by weakening consistency of style. Nothing is gained by bending to the whims of "reliable sources", which in matters of punctuation, capitalisation, and similar styling are anything but reliable – at least as grist for a well-harmonised encyclopedia. Such a squandering of resources – and such painfully inadequate evidence, in most cases.

Noetica^Tea? 09:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I found a style guide that says that "popular and fictious" laws shoud capitalize "Law". That would explain why most sources capitalize this sort of "laws" while actual physics laws are almost never capitalized. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First, you misspell fictitious, as you do at two current RMs.

Once again you are unwilling to engage in genuine sustained dialogue, even though you came here to start this conversation. Why do I bother to respond? Yes, of course you found one style guide that lends incidental support to certain RMs you attempt. But do you mention that same guide when its provisions are against your case (as that guide does for established scientific laws)? No. That would be consistent.

Look at truly exemplary contemporary works of reference, like Elsevier's dictionary of psychological theories (2006). I have just linked to "Murphy's law" in that work. Yes, it has its own entry; and as with all the other laws in that book, the word is lower-cased. That is proper uniformity, and that is a reliable source of the right sort for Wikipedia to emulate.

Come here if you want to discuss things with a view to rational and consistent development of the Project. If you are immune to evidence and argument, and are determined to ignore Wikipedia style guidelines, please don't waste my time.

Noetica^Tea? 23:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Improving my edit summaries

Since about one or two weeks ago, the top of a history page now has a link to a new (a sixth) external tool, namely, User edits. My 34 edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style are listed at this page, and my edit summaries are shown. Can any of those edit summaries be improved?
—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
My 34 edits are listed at this page also.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a wonderful new tool, and I foresee many uses for it. Since you have opened a useful discussion at WT:MOS on editors' edit summaries, I have responded to you there about your own (which are fine, in my opinion). Noetica^Tea? 01:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Open confessions of a closed mind

Sometimes we encounter people who seem to give evidence of being closed-minded about one thing or another. Rarely we meet someone who speaks openly about being closed intellectually to evidence that would contradict a position already chosen. You might be interested to read the words of Richard Lewontin, as found at the following page.

• RICHARD LEWONTIN: Billions and Billions of Demons

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Other statements by him can be found at Richard Lewontin - Wikiquote.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly interested in such questions, Wavelength. I have done a good deal of exploration concerning constraints on belief and on human rationality – in real life, not on Wikipedia. I am short of time for such a discussion right now, but I may want to pursue it later with you. Noetica^Tea? 01:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A discussion about the article has been archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Open confessions of a closed mind.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

dash example II

one from an external text:

a thing of Rube Goldberg–like complexity

(Rosen, The Most Powerful Idea in the World, p 20)

— kwami (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Who can deny it? There are cases that the limited resources of punctuation can accommodate only awkwardly. But remember: hard cases make bad law. Most authorities are uncomfortable with that use of the en dash. It is as likely to cause problems for many readers: those accustomed to "a thing of Rube Goldberg-like complexity", with the capitals being sufficient to bind the components in constructions like "Rube Goldberg". And when capitals are not present, another hyphen can be used: "His elder-statesman-like demeanour". Noetica^Tea? 03:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that works too. I wasn't trying to push a particular point so much as I thought it might be relevant example for your collection. At least, it seems that you're collecting examples. — kwami (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Then I thank you. I guess I was distracted by my knowledge that you do in fact favour such a use of the en dash. Please don't go to that trouble in future; I have enough examples, or can find enough. On the other hand, I would welcome truly unusual sorts. Noetica^Tea? 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You saying I don't get what you're saying

What you seem to be saying in multiple article's RMs that it's not OK to have shorter titles under most circumstances. Both WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, as well as other guideline and just plain common sense, clearly stay that, in the interest of navigability, titles should be as short as possible. You also bring up other topics with similar names, ones that either get few hits or don't even have articles at all. You claim that that isn't involved with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but it is, you just aren't calling it that. And using non-articles to argue for a primary topic is irrelevant, especially since some of the things you bring up may fail GNG. Please stop your RM/TITLE comments that ignore policy and guidelines. With the number of pies your fingers are in, it's borderline disruptive. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, PBB. Sorry I could not attend to this more promptly. I encourage such approaches to sort out misunderstandings. No, I do not stand against shorter titles in all circumstances; but I think that a developing automatic insistence on the shortest title is unhelpful. It accords with neither the letter nor the intent of the provisions you mention. Habits have arisen of reading them legalistically and narrowly; I take a stand against such interpretations. It is abundantly clear: the needs of readers are not served, when we insist for example that a district of New Orleans be identified by the title "French Quarter", rather than the immediately informative "French Quarter (New Orleans)". Of course I accept the closing admin's judgement in the RM that I initiated; I left a message thanking the admin, not contesting anything. Why should I be ruffled by the decision? I genuinely believe that the longer title is better, and would parallel innumerable similarly helpful titles. But I have no attachment in that particular case – nor any regional or other bias. (We may suspect that others do have such a bias; but let's assume good faith.) The "French Quarter" example will be invaluable when we review the policies and guidelines affecting RMs, and their patently uneven application.

You will understand, then, that as an editor openly committed to the stability and consensual development of policies and guidelines, I do not accept your judgement: "With the number of pies your fingers are in, it's borderline disruptive." But I do not mind your claiming that, here at my talkpage.

My best wishes to you. Noetica^Tea? 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Carpe diem. Seize the day."

The obscuring of Italian Wikipedia emphasized to me the somewhat vulnerable nature of access to Wikipedia, and, by extension, to the Internet, because of legislative, technical, economic, or environmental factors. Remembering that continued access is not absolutely guaranteed, I ask myself how I can best spend my time if this is my last day or week or month. I need to prioritize the ways in which I contribute and also the ways in which I benefit. The expression Carpe diem ("Seize the day") is timely. Steve Jobs made some comments about the use of time. (Steve Jobs - Wikiquote)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure many of us were inspired by the words of Steve Jobs, repeated now that the man speaks no more. The transience of Wikipedia is less apparent, but the case of the Italian branch is another memento mori. Problems there affect my own work. I had not realised how dependent I was on immediate access to its riches – or at least to portals opening on less familiar stretches of knowledge, through the links it afforded. Let's hope the whole can be put on a safer footing, even as we retain the broader insights that events might prompt. Noetica^Tea? 23:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ecco un collegamento ipertestuale.

• SegnaWeb: risorse Internet selezionate dai bibliotecari italiani - Home

—Wavelength (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks has an interlanguage link to http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cloni, which appears to list 112 websites in its table of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

please discuss

Please engage in discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#comet_and_galaxy_examples instead of reverting again the examples without discussion or proof of consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Enric, last time you came here I made this observation: "Once again you are unwilling to engage in genuine sustained dialogue, even though you came here to start this conversation. Why do I bother to respond?" I'm afraid I have run out of patience with you; I cannot act on the assumption that this time will be any different. You seem to refer to this edit of mine, from 18 days ago. I wish you would give such links, so I know what your intention is from the start. My edit summary was this: "Undid a revision that runs against this page's main principle: 'Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization'; there is no consensus for this application of capitals to comets, etc., beyond the FIRST word; stop warring, and discuss this rationally." I invite you to learn from that example. Give more thought to communication, as a consideration to everyone concerned.

It is obvious that you have strong views about capitalisation. That's fine. Great to have convictions, and the energy to act on them. But when you seek to entrench those views firmly in Wikipedia practice and guidelines without thought for general practice, so that we are hostage to every diverse standard from a myriad of "authorities", most with less expertise than some of us have here, you go too far. Wikipedia needs rational, uniform, easy-to-follow guidelines. Wikipedia is not a collection of NASA technical texts, and not a subdivision of IAU. Neither Oxford (with its battery of style publications) nor Chicago's CMOS16 follows any of those relatively small-time players slavishly. Both favour general, robust, usable guidelines. So should we, after disinterested consultation in the community.

Noetica^Tea? 09:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A certain civil code

Noetica - I appreciated your thorough and intentional responses in this debate. I've put in my recapitulation, as it seems like most of us have said what we're likely to say without having repeated ourselves more than five times. I think we've both tried our best. I look forward to our paths crossing again. Dohn joe (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

O, this little RM, you mean? Yes indeed. Good healthy fun. I respect your valuable contributions to that discussion. The whole will serve to illustrate several procedural and substantive points for future RMs. This one was civil indeed, compared to many recently. Tony, myself, and a good few other editors are growing concerned about unruly process in these moves. They need to be more securely founded, but also more efficient; we can't always start again from first principles like Sisyphus, as the count of articles mounts toward 4,000,000. Best wishes to you. I hope we will work together again. Noetica^Tea? 07:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems a good place to accept your invitation to tea. Earl Grey?

I am impressed that this argument of Kotniski's changed your mind; that's rare. Since I also agree with it, perhaps we can meet somewhere in the middle.

The rest of my position on capitalization can be summed up in three questions and my answers to them.

1. Is the conventional description of English adequate and complete?

   No, of course not. English is a complex recursive system; no finite system of rules can describe it.

2. Should we try for an adequate and complete description of English for use on Wikipedia?

   No. We cannot achieve that end; any system we come up with is still finite. It may have different gaps, but it will still have gaps. Furthermore, if we do change systems, we will fail to communicate with non-Wikipedians; that is not useful to the encyclopedia.

3. Is the conventional description of English adequate to decide between French Quarter and French quarter?

   Yes, in general; that purely typographic distinction represents no deep feature of English, but the conventional distinction between common and proper names.

I believe we agree on #1, but disagree on #2. I am not interested, I fear, in your questions of detail, because they seem to have one of two purposes:

• To convince me to agree with you on #1. If so, they are redundant.
• To convince me of the necessity of answering Yes to #2. If so, they are futile. I am convinced such a project is a waste of time, and am not interested in taking it up as a hobby.

Shall I pour?JCScaliger (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, JC. I was hoping you might drop in. No Earl Grey for me thanks; I'm surprised you were able to find any here. Never touch the stuff. But you go ahead: and try one of these Danishes, which I get brought in for their fine streak of white almond-and-cinnamon icing and their capital letters. No nonsense with proper names, of course.

Now, I'm too busy in the world just now – but if you'll leave those notes on the sideboard I'll look them over and we can meet sometime tomorrow, good? Just mind that – yes, there. Sorry, we've had chihuahuas in the place, and the help are all off at some "occupy" thing. What was it now? O yes: " 'occupy' WT:MOS", they said. Rascals. Still, damn nice punctuators the lot of them.

I've got something Tibetan we might try tomorrow: thick-leaved, full of gravitas but not stodgy. I'll be interested to see what you make of it.

Till then?

Noetica^Tea? 05:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, still totally immersed in the world. I'll try for a comeback in the weekend. Noetica^Tea? 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights

I believe you may have misunderstood Gabriel's post in your reponse[6] - he has not advocated doing anything contrary to policy in any way. You also appear to misunderstand the nature of the situation - Men's rights is not parallel to Women's rights; the two have completely different origins, history, and prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 October 2011

Killer, please do not leave unsigned comments on my talkpage, shifting to someone else the burden of documenting posts. Thank you for sharing with me your beliefs. I do not know why you specifically chose to do that, but you are welcome to express opinions here.

Unfortunately, the opinions that you express this time cast doubt on the propriety of your self-appointment in "keeping order" at that talkpage. You "appear" (if I may borrow your mode of accusation) not to distinguish the role of helpful admin overseeing a difficult discussion from the role of commentator on the content. My own small contribution at that talkpage has been respectful and measured. I am not sure that I would make the same assessment of certain other contributions, including yours.

I have no confidence in you as moderator or overseer of that talkpage. I regard the article as a travesty of Wikipedian ideals, because of arrant political involvement from competing interests. I have simple factual material to contribute (as I have done); but I doubt that it can have a fair showing, so I expect that I will keep away. Another reason for doing so is that I feel intimidated and under threat of arbitrary sanctions, given the community probation you have imposed and the censorious moves you have recently made against an editor. It's just too dangerous, even for innocent bystanders. I see little hope for improvement of the article or the situation surrounding it.

Noetica^Tea? 22:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Noetica! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus redefined

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Majority vote? (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register

I have updated the organization of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, and added one entry for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting (June and July 2011). I understand that occasional changes in headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings can be expected, but it can be somewhat challenging to maintain the Register. The Register was intended to manage the many fluctuations of the Manual of Style, but it is itself subject to those same fluctuations. I compare the task to painting an acrobat in motion, or counting the birds in an airborne flock.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Genitives of genitives

There was a discussion about genitives of genitives at the Language Reference Desk.

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 October 29#Possesive proper nouns in the genitive [sic]

This phenomenon occurs in English, because of the excluded middle noun. The topic might have some relevance to the Manual of Style, and to your interest in punctuation.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to receive your reports, Wavelength. Thank you. But I cannot undertake to follow up on much. I am too busy, and will have to restrict myself to select issues, mainly with WP:MOS. Noetica^Tea? 21:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Global Editors Network

The first paragraph of the new article "Global Editors Network" is the following.

Global Editors Network (GEN) is the first non-profit, non-governmental association that brings together editors-in-chief and senior news executives from all platforms – print, digital, mobile and broadcast. Its goal is to break down the barriers between traditional and new media, so that information can be gathered and shared with each other to define an open journalism model for the future and to create new journalistic concepts and tools.

The official website is http://www.globaleditorsnetwork.org/.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Style

There is now Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Style.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

French Quarter

Hello,

I saw your comments on Jimbo's talk page and wasn't entirely sure what point you were trying to make. If two or more places share the same name, then it seems we have two choices to deal with that. We could have a disambigation page treating them all alike. So a search for Athens would take you to a page where you could select the city in Greece or the one in Georgia, USA. Or, we can decide that one is dominant, and someone searching for London goes to the article about the British capital, and a hat note takes the reader to a page listing other Londons, including the one in Ontario. Are there other choices? I'm willing to concede the possibility that the New Orleans neighborhood may not be the best known French Quarter worldwide. If not, how should "French Quarter" best be handled in your view? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen. You refer to these edits, right? I am surprised you found that difficult to follow. Let me ask you: when I posed the question at the start of my post, could you make sense immediately of the title? Or did you, as almost all readers all over the world would, think something like this: "I wonder where that is? Is it some particular place, or is it a generic term for French parts of cities? Is it perhaps the name of a coin, or the title of a novel? Or is it, on the model of Dutch courage, a sort of quarter that is given to the enemy but with some twist or other?" It seems (from your userpage) that you are in the US, so you might have known the French Quarter in New Orleans. But there are indeed other ones; and there are indeed other candidate meanings, as I have just shown. I, like most people without a famous French quarter nearby, treat the term as purely generic. Note that there is a DAB page: French Quarter (disambiguation). What would I do to fix things? Well, I would make all of the titles that are involved informative: to everyone, at first glance. As I illustrated with the examples of better titles for electoral districts in Australia. So obviously, I would want French Quarter moved to French Quarter (New Orleans). And then, in accord with the established guideline at WP:DAB, I would move French Quarter (disambiguation) to French quarter (lower case, because the term is often generic, and does often appear with "quarter" uncapitalised).

The case is obviously different from the case of Athens. There is obviously a primary topic, and it is the original and most famous Athens, in Greece. But as I pointed out in my post, there is not always a primary topic – even if there is clear best candidate to qualify as a primary topic. There is no primary topic for John Smith (that's a DAB page; take a look at it!), even though one of those John Smiths might attract more interest than any other John Smith.

Now, another question for you: how would the arrangement I suggest for French quarter disadvantage anyone, anywhere?

Noetica^Tea? 05:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have evidence or even a plausible fact-based argument that almost all readers all over the world, or rather the subset who enter "French Quarter" into the Wikipedia search box are thinking, "I wonder what that is?" rather than "I am seeking more information about the neighborhood in New Orleans I've heard of", then I would agree with you completely. And again I concede that I could be wrong in my U.S.-centric blindness, so I simply ask for the evidence or the basis in facts. Specific details of novels. References to notable French Quarters in other cities. Numismatic coverage. Extensive coverage of the term outside the New Orleans context. Coverage far more extensive than London, Ontario has received.

So, I guess in this case, you are arguing that there ought be no article called "French quarter" but only a series of articles with those words followed by parenthetical phrases to clarify them.

You ask, "how would the arrangement I suggest for French quarter disadvantage anyone, anywhere?" My response would be, not even a tiny bit more than the arrangement that would move "London" to "London, England". Thanks for making me think. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Cullen, as I often have to point out to people in discussion of RMs lately, people do not simply type text into the search box. They interrogate Wikipedia in all sorts of ways. For one thing, there is a tight connection between Google and Wikipedia. Someone might be interested in the French colonial legacy, for example, and search Google with the phrase "French quarter". Tell me: how is it useful to such an enquirer that in the first hundred hits there is only one from Wikipedia (I checked no further than that)? When I do such a search I get this only, among the first hundred results:

French Quarter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Quarter
The French Quarter, also known as Vieux Carré, is the oldest neighborhood in the city of New Orleans. When New Orleans (La Nouvelle-Orléans in French) was ...

How is it useful that no other French quarter is mentioned among those hundred hits? That Wikipedia hit is a lonely raft of factual information adrift on a sea of commerce. Don't you see some US informational bias there?

As for London, with respect: don't be ridiculous. What do you think might be the ratio between people who know about London, England, and people who know about French Quarter, New Orleans? I have travelled in approximately twenty-two countries, and am deeply immersed in French language and culture. But though I knew about London from the age of three, I only learned decades later, through a badly named Wikipedia article about an Ursuline convent in New Orleans, that there was a French quarter in that city. I could have named at least four others.

The failure to see things from the global readers' perspective – or even from the general, non-editing readers' perspective – is the very topic of that discussion. I note, with regret and reluctance, that you seem to share in that failure.

Noetica^Tea? 08:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, if I may play devil's advocate for a moment...What about the hypothetical kid in some small town who is reading a book and runs across the phrase "Armenian Quarter" in all caps. Not knowing where or what this is, or maybe just wanting more information, the kid googles the phrase and finds, via Wikipedia, that "The Armenian Quarter...is one of the four quarters of the Old City of Jerusalem." Now, the Armenians have historically had a rough time of it, and have had more than their fair share of dispersals and migrations, so you might think there would be other places in the world with "an" Armenian quarter. In fact there is, or maybe was, one in Baku, Transcaucasia, and another in Amman, Jordan. But does Wikipedia say even one word about these Armenian quarters? No. It does not. Could this be due to Jewish-centric editing? Or maybe a failure to think globally? Neotarf (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What, no tea? No sympathy for the devil, I suppose. Next time, then, at my place.Neotarf (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my taking a little while. I have something varietal from the Cameron Highlands for you, in fact. I mean that place in Malaysia, reminiscent of the old Raj a bit to the northwest – not any sort of back formation from Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, The Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons), Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons), The Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada, or The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa. Those Cameron Highlanders are all sturdy consumers of tea no doubt, but only in the Malaysian recension of reality is the stuff actually produced. Ah, memories of Tanah Rata (that's in Malaysia, by the way; in the Cameron Highlands). Relaxing place, after doing Thailand and Laos.

Yes. I agree, and I don't think you are playing devil's advocate all – not against my stance, anyway. I'm in favour of all sorts of qualifiers in titles, for our unpredictably readership. Titles get longer, and there are competing qualifiers even for one article; but that is no obstruction. I would have no problem with Armenian Quarter being moved to Armenian Quarter (Jerusalem) (see the reverse redirect I have just made), even if no other Armenian quarter ever surfaced in Wikipedia. I would have no problem with Oodnadatta being moved to Oodnadatta (South Australia), or Cameron Highlands to Cameron Highlands (Malaysia) (see my new redirect). No conspiracy, Jewish, Presbyterian, or otherwise. Just a failure to think globally; and a pervasive human inability to predict the information needs of those who do not know what we do. That's a pretty serious problem in an encyclopedia; and it affects us all when we too are consumers of information, not producers. So is the inability to grasp how Wikipedia intersects with Google (see discussion above): as if the suite of articles extant here were the entire domain, and as if the actual absence from reality of a coin called "French quarter" helps to inform anyone who is mystified by that phrase. We must demystify the art of demystification; but editorial nature being what it is, I think that is probably not going to happen.

A scone with that?

Noetica^Tea? 21:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't offended then, good. We Americans tend to value directness, but others may interpret it as rudeness, especially if we neglect the rituals.

A most intriguing tea, and I appreciate the hospitality, but unfortunately I have gotten unexpectedly busy and cannot give it the attention it deserves at the moment. I hope you don't mind if I let it mull and come back to it.Neotarf (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Where were we now? Ah, taking tea in Tanah Rata. Thank you for introducing me to the spot. The enjoyment of tea is often enhanced by the surroundings.

The Tana Rata piece is nice: short and to the point, much like my favorite Wikipedia article of all time, the one on serial commas, or at least it was the way I remember it. I consulted it years ago in haste, in order to answer a problem I had to solve immediately. In the first few sentences, it gave me exactly the information I needed to decide whether to use it for the particular situation, as well as solidifying by own personal biases on the subject. Peeking later at the back room I saw the discussion was 99% procedural, but the rest was very interesting. Too bad so much of this knowledge is tucked away inside a discussion somewhere and not readily accessible.

Your redirect for Armenian Quarter is unobjectionable: it is invisible to anyone who arrives there by "Armenian Quarter", but for anyone who arrives by "Armenian Quarter (Jerusalem)" (does anyone really type in all those parentheses when they google?), there is a small reminder of the difference between what they typed and where they ended up. I have found that a useful reminder on occasion. I don't see an advantage to the extra redirect, the same article would have come up in the first page of a google search anyhow, but at least it does no harm.

What next...the Cameron Highlands piece, nice in that it gives off the colonial flavor of the region, you can almost sense being there. So much in Wikipedia is boring, and that it is not. But after a bit it's too hard to read. Besides the loose organization, it is full of spurious links. It insists on linking to "British", "Chinese", "Second World War", and even "tea", not once, but over and over again. If I want to know what tea is, I can consult a dictionary. But, I always think, maybe this time it is different, maybe there is something wild and esoteric at the other end of the link. There never is. In fact, half the time the link is broken and just invites you to create a listing for it. Long ago I decided there were specially programmed Wikipedia bots that went around comparing all the words in an article with known wikipedia articles and creating those little blue links just to annoy me personally.

Your Highlanders...now, they're in quite a mess, in spite of their tea drinking. They have a better idea of what plaid they want to wear than what to name themselves. At first I thought the part in parentheses was part of the name, then I thought it was some sort of disambiguation, then some sort of qualifier of the name, but now I see it's the entire name after all. And the title uses the same format as the Armenian Quarter (Jerusalem) disambiguation. Confusing.

Personally I don't like the parentheses format in titles at all. (maybe subtitles...?) If an article is about the French Quarter, it is about New Orleans, period. If you are from the outer galaxies, and you consult Wikipedia about the French Quarter, you need to be informed of that. Likewise if you grew up where I did and knew where Winnipeg was at the age of 3, but all you knew about London was from the playground taunt about "I see London, I see France", you need to be told unequivocally that London is in England, never mind if there is one in Iowa as well (I don't know that there is, that was just an example). Believe me, people are capable of code-switching very quickly on these things. I once lived near the West Bank (no, not THAT one), but we were entirely capable of taking a bus across the river to the West Bank or reading in the local news about the West Bank and knowing where that was, at the same time as we could read the international news and understand that THE West Bank is in the Middle East.

If you think there should be some information about some Oodnadatta out there for the world to marvel at, why don't you just put it out there, someone would probably benefit. I'm afraid I don't see the American conspiracy behind every tree that you see, in fact, I consider you to be very Eurocentric. And we probably like you more than you like us. Long ago the European powers divided the colonial pie between themselves, and have never gotten over the fact that the Americans cut a piece for themselves as well. But that is neither here nor there. Who can really write in another person's idiolect, besides changing a few z's and c's and sprinkling in some u's. People will write what they write in the way that is correct for them. How would the world be the interesting place it is if it were any other way?

I do appreciate hearing your views. Next time I must bring some Nepalese tea, very fragrant, and best enjoyed in Nepal's highland region just below the Himalayas, where the air is brisk, even at mid-day, but the sunlight intense. This tea is packed in a wooden box with a sliding lid; the flavor is the most profound when the tea is consumed with milk.

BTW, the fact that you are in δ-Quadrant, upper-case Q (but with a dash?), and not "a δ-quadrant", has not been lost on me....

Neotarf (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

MoS

Did you neglect to read my comment here before you summarily reverted? It seems like a needless unpleasant thing to do. I put some thought into my comments, as I hope everyone would. Neutrality^talk 00:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It just saw you participated in the earlier discussion (which took place over the course of less than one day). Since there is clearly disagreement on the subject, and since there's a general tendency to leave the article as it is (WP:STATUSQUO: "the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change"), does it not make more sense to let more parties comment and mull over an issue - especially when I just weighed in for the first time, with a comment that makes an ambiguity clear? Revert only when necessary. Warm regards --Neutrality^talk 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the matter to me here, Neutrality. I don't know what you are referring to in that second post here. What earlier discussion? Could you show me a diff? [Ah, I think you mean in that same section. All right. But all that I say below still applies:]

Let me explain. The guideline in question is long established, and the facts of this case are very clear. A point of style was raised at WT:MOS about the article Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid. It was adequately discussed, and it was plain that the guideline WP:LQ applies to that article because it applies to all articles. WP:RETAIN is not relevant, because it has to do with choice among styles that are recommended and not advised against in MOS. The "American" way (an inaccurate characterisation) with quotation marks and adjacent punctuation is a style advised against in MOS. If you want to challenge this in general, please do not do so with specific edits at an article. I'm sure you are welcome to continue discussion at the appropriate forum: WT:MOS.

Best wishes to you.

Noetica^Tea? 00:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your further improvements to the article so that it conforms with the logical quotation requirement at MOS. I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about MOS with Neutrality, as I'd prefer to work on the Nancy Kwan article and review DYK articles for close paraphrasing and other policy violations. Neutrality's left a lengthy response 40 minutes ago at the WT:MOS section I started. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's no answer at all. The "logical quotation" principle is not "long established." In fact, my position is the one that is long established: We do NOT at Wikipedia arbitrarily change from one acceptable English style to another. The rationale for the rule is clear: To prevent meaningless English-variety changes that waste everyone's time and send a message that one standard English variety is "better" than another." The community imposed this common-sense rule long ago so there would be peace in terms of English varieties. If you want to change the long-established consensus, then by all means try to get consensus. But it is a distortion - an unintentional one, I am sure - to state that running around changing grammar from one acceptable form to another is the status quo.

As to the assertion that the standard American punctuation style of commas and periods inside quotation marks is "inaccurate" -- That's just factually wrong. All four major style guides in the U.S. - AP, MLA, APA, and Chicago - agree on this. It is plainly false to say that this is not standard American English. You may not prefer this style, but no person can logically deny that is the American style. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality, it would be more efficient to do what I request: continue the discussion at WT:MOS. It is inefficient to conduct it here as well. Just one point: I did not say that what you call "the standard American punctuation style" is inaccurate (though I might have had reason to). I wrote this:

The "American" way (an inaccurate characterisation) with quotation marks and adjacent punctuation is a style advised against in MOS.

It is inaccurate to characterise as non-American what MOS calls "logical quotation" (which was earlier called "logical punctuation", by the linguist R.L. Trask who wrote on the practice in his famous guide to punctuation), and the alternative as American.

See you at WT:MOS? The topic has been dealt with many times before, and it will come up again. Nevertheless, LQ is long established in MOS.

Noetica^Tea? 01:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia's most important articles

I found a link to this page at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. I am aware that your available time is restricted, but you might wish to bookmark it for future consideration when you can spend more time in reading it.

• Improving Wikipedia's most important articles

—Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A discussion about the document has been archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 88#Study on GA/FA and whether Wikipedia is failing or not, with a subsection "Response from Dweller".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Accident?

This surely had to be an accident, since the reverted comment wasn't vandalism.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, JD. Yes it was simply a slip of the mouse. I'll take a look there now, and post something proper. Noetica^Tea? 05:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa

As I've just written in the move discussion, I apologize for allowing the thread to get out of hand. You were correct in suggesting that the discussion occur at WT:MOSTM (to which I'll be posting shortly), as I've now realized upon seeing the mess that's piled up at Talk:The LEGO Group.
Would it be okay with you if I remove the entire exchange? As you foresaw, it's disruptive to the move discussion (and frankly, I'm embarrassed to have fueled it). Sometimes, I can be a real windbag (a well-intentioned windbag, but a windbag nonetheless). —David Levy 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here with that, David. There is no issue between us, I think we can agree. Let's continue working on this at WT:MOSTM.

I have zero time for any WP work, and I really need to keep things tight if I can. I go into research and detailed articulations at the drop of a hat, as you can see – and as you do, I think. The cognitive psychology of RMs and of more general issues arising in them is fascinating; but no time to elaborate on that right now.

Best wishes. Darjeeling next time?

Noetica^Tea? 06:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As you observed, there's a significant degree of similarity between our communication styles. In my experience, this generally results in either a highly rewarding collaboration or an immensely frustrating, absurdly drawn-out duel of dissertations. You have my sincere gratitude for putting a stop to the latter and dragging me toward the former (I'm confident).

Do you mind if I remove the regrettable exchanges? —David Levy 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that you collapsed the text at Talk:The LEGO Group. I've done the same at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks again. —David Levy 08:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Abel Scribe's Guides to Research Style and Documentation

In my Internet research for style guidelines for trademarks, I found this page.

• Dr. Abel Scribe's Guides to Research Style and Documentation.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Iran US Relations 1979-today

Noetica,

Rather than withdrawing the move request, simply post the minor formatting changes to the talk page and I will revise the move request. An issue of hyphens vs en-dashes can be revised and is not restarting a move request for. Also, I don't know how to type en-dashes. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Donde. See that talkpage now. Busy for a while now – but I will catch up with changes there and assist when I can. Best wishes, Noetica^Tea? 20:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to make dashes.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Relisting move proposals for 5 O'Clock and 5 O'clock (song)

I hope this is ok, but I have re-listed the articles 5 O'Clock and 5 O'clock (song) with a move proposal together at 5 O'clock (song)'s talk page here: Talk:5 O'clock (song)#Requested move 2. I asked on said talk page whether or not I should do so and waited 24 hrs with no response so I just went ahead and did it. There is also new evidence to consider regarding why they should be moved and my move proposal involves slightly different proposed names then others have proposed before. I hope that this helps make things clearer for everyone and not more confusing :-)
I will let all the editors who were involved in recent discussions know.
Please see the talk page for more info.
Thanks, MsBatfish (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work, MsB. That was such a mess! Have we found all similarly named articles, so they can be considered jointly? I'm too busy now to get involved, but I'll take a look later.

I glanced at your userpage, and found things that we might discuss some time. Drop in for tea another time, if you like. (Real-life work deadlines, now!)

Noetica^Tea? 01:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are the only 2 articles I've been able to find that are actually called "5 O'Clock" - all others have some other word or words in the title (like 5 O'Clock World, It's Five O'Clock, Five O'Clock Shadow, The 5 O'Clock Show, and so on), so I don't think they should be a problem or require a disambiguation page (do you?) So far this new RM discussion seems to be going smoothly :-)

I know what you mean about having to focus on other things, but Wikipedia can be so addictive, lol.

Let me know when you're less busy what you meant about things to discuss :-) Thanks, MsBatfish (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS edited by Edokter

Please inspect this revision of WP:MOS. You know more about the history of the page, and the reasons for its provisions and its formatting, and so are in a better position to revert the change and to provide an appropriate edit summary.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Wavelength. I appreciate your checking that changes to the central MOS page are well documented. We seem to be affecting the culture with such action, gradually. As for the content and the edit summary of Edokter's latest edit, I think there is no problem. But please let me know if you want me to take it further.

Noetica^Tea? 01:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Names for discussion

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a "Names for discussion" section (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the lost capital 'K' on kabbalah (sic) RMs, overcorrection. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops

I just re-closed a discussion before realizing it was one I had already closed and you reverted on the grounds that I'm not an admin. Non-admins close discussions quite frequently, per WP:IAR if nothing else. What's the issue? I'm just trying to help with the backlog, as I've done many times before. I know policy and I'm totally uninvolved with these particular articles. No admin privs are required to do what I'm doing. Do you have an issue with my close other than I don't have admin tool privileges? If someone else who happened to have admin privs did the exact same thing I did, would you take it to AN/I? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not my habit to take anything to ANI. But I note from various long and vexed controversies that you push the limits of acceptable Wikipedian behaviour on many fronts. I would advise you to step back into the ranks, and think twice before upsetting the smooth running of the Project quite so much.

I remember your attempt to close an RM at Battles of the Mexican–American War, earlier this year. That was the most hotly contested RMs at the time. It is not your place to judge such matters, and your recent closures are not in accord with the written protocols either (since those RMs are contested). The whole area is sensitive.

Cool it. I have no time for any of this, nor for any long-winded legalistic dispute that might flow from this encounter of ours. I reserve the option of acting against what I see as your excesses (as permitted by "WP:IAR if nothing else"); but I cannot go on and on about it. I urge you not to, also.

Noetica^Tea? 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about anything I've done before is not relevant here. If you can't tell me what specifically is contrary to the improvement of WP with respect to the particular close you reverted, I see no reason to pay heed to anything you're saying. If that's the case, your revert amounts to nothing but disruption. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion and yours count equally little. Your closing those RMs is not in accord with the provisions for non-admin closures. That's what counts more. Neither the intent nor the effect of such reversions of your actions is disruptive. I have already suggested to you in enough detail what is contrary to the improvement of WP in your actions. Others agree. Just back down and work with others better, without generating reams of unproductive discussion; and stop pushing so many boundaries to so little good effect. Noetica^Tea? 05:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For crying out loud

Do you habitually go around and comment on proposals by saying that you don't have time to comment on the proposal, but start talking about some other issue? Or is this just special treatment you reserve for my proposal? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C, please assume good faith and act in good faith. Your opinion is important, but must be put in the arena according to WP's protocols for discussion. I don't think you should have closed those RMs. Tony (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright law and the Internet

You might find these resources to be interesting.

• Copyright Matters: Digitization and Public Access
• Twitter (“CopyrightOffice”)
• U.S. Copyright Office - NewsNet Issue 441
  

—Wavelength (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right

Hi Noetica,

I am sorry, you are right indeed. My link is not really part of WP:ENGVAR (however, it is part of WP:MOS, which is also a bit confusing).

Thanks for the discussion, I learned a couple of things.

Best, Sasha (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, Sasha. Those shortcuts are sometimes confusing in their operation. In fact I think we need reforms in how they are deployed. More on that another time! I'm really preoccupied in the world for a while now.

Best wishes to you.

Noetica^Tea? 01:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kalnik

Thank you for your comment regarding proposed move at Talk:Kalnik; I just responded to it. – Miranche ^T C 07:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, Miranche. See my suggestion there now. Best to make a new RM instead, as soon as possible. Noetica^Tea? 08:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hvala! – Miranche ^T C 11:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

See wikt:hvala#Serbo-Croatian.—Wavelength (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Headings in vital articles

As you can see from my recent contributions (not a permanent link), I have just examined all 988 articles listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles (permanent link here), searching for stylistic errors in headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings.
I have corrected errors of letter case, removed "The", changed ampersands to "and", and revised virgules. In most of my edit summaries for those corrections, I have linked to one or more of MOS:HEAD, WP:&, and WP:SLASH. After I had finished the section "People" in the list of vital articles, I also linked to WP:VA, to indicate my motivation in choosing those articles.
The first of those articles edited was "Pablo Picasso", which I edited at 00:59, 13 December 2011. I estimate (from the position of the vertical scrollbar) that about 300 articles of the 988 needed to be corrected in the respects which I specified. I had uncertainties about a few of the 988 articles, so I left the headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings uncorrected or only partly corrected.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC) and 16:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My revision of "History of mathematics" was reverted, with the explanation that "Scientific Revolution is capitalised as a proper name", although my edit summary had a direct, unpiped link to "Scientific revolution".
—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC) and 16:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the reversion of my revision of "History of mathematics" also reverted another change in that revision, I have restored that change in isolation.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My revision of "Prime number" was reverted, with the explanation that " 'number of prime numbers' just looks silly without 'the' ". After that, the reversion was undone by another editor, redone by the same reverter, and undone again by the same editor who undid it the first time.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding repeatedly reverting without substantive objection. The thread is "Uninvolved admin - please take a look".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Article titles. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is your prerogative to indulge your litigious propensity as part of a campaign to adapt Wikipedia policy to your taste, B2C; it is my prerogative to ignore such distractions from productivity. You could, for a change, simply wait. A provision that was in place for many months can sit there while it is discussed for a couple of days. No disaster will ensue.

Noetica^Tea? 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C ANI

I have mentioned you at AN/I: Wikipedia:AN/I#Born2cycle.2C_3RR.2C_RFC.2C_etc.. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaching out

You claim to be acting in good faith. Let's look at what happened. Yesterday, I boldly edited WP:Article titles and explained the edit on the talk page. Tony reverted this. Okay, that's 2 out of 3 on the WP:BRD scale. But where is the D? Tony did not discuss. He even admitted not even thinking about the change or reading the explanation, and refused to do so. You supported the revert, and also refused to talk about the substance of the change. Instead you ranted on and on about me and my behavior. I'm really trying to AGF here, but I'm having trouble seeing it. Can you help me see it?

Also, what about AGF regarding my initial edit? Why not take a look at it? Why not read my explanation? Why not comment on that? You obviously had enough time and energy to comment about me and my behavior... how is that productive? Where is the AGF? How is all this not disruptive? If you can help me see that too, that also will be appreciated. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, B2C. At this stage, I am not confident that yet another round of discussion at yet another location will help. I am seriously pressed for time. We have very different styles and very different understandings of how Wikipedia works (or should work), and of how best to serve the needs of the readers. I hope everyone can slow down and work with greater respect and flexibility concerning titles: the provisions for establishing them in the first place, and their amelioration at RMs. Let's leave it at that for now. Noetica^Tea? 10:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C fiasco

I just wanted to say that I don't particularly like B2C and am not trying to defend either him or his style, I've interacted with him before and I know he can come across as abrasive (even when he's on your side... how's that for frustrating). But when I saw the wall of text on WP:TITLE, it was offensive to the senses (I just skipped through it). What I said at AN/I might have come off as a little combative... but really, when I stumbled on that policy discussion I really had to ask myself WTF is going on here. I'm not sure of what the agenda of each editor is, but to me, the policy seemed better written as it was prior... and B2C's edits looked in good faith enough upon cursory glance. -Kai445 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to explain, Kai. I fear that you have stumbled into something ridiculously complex. It is hard to grasp the issues if you are unfamiliar with the history. I would ask you to think twice before interfering again with inadequate knowledge. The iceberg is bigger than it looks.

As for "walls of text", if I had my way there would be no text at all on this matter at ANI, or any similar page. Don't judge till you've been in the situation yourself, through daring to take a stand against abuse of process by some sharp operator or other.

Noetica^Tea? 03:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfamiliar of the history of what, WP:TITLE? We are talking about a couple of words in a sentence, spare me the drama. -Kai445 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, much more than that. I'll spare you all the drama you want. It was never my intention to raise this with you. Don't ask if you're not interested.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 06:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this. Here again you, Noetica, demonstrate your inability or unwillingness (or both) to clearly articulate whatever your point may be on this issue. You won't do it here, you won't do it at WT:TITLE. But you will go on and on and on about how you're dissatisfied, with vague references to whatever the heck it is, like "hard to grasp the issues" and "icebergs".

You have created a mountain of evidence proving that you are a tendentious editor. If you continue whining and complaining without actually saying anything substantive about the issue, nor answering pointed questions about your position, and yet resist removal of the "under discussion" tag without actually discussing anything substantive, I will file a user RFC about your disruptive behavior. FYI. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to understand disruptive behavior, B2C, take a look at the relative calm in title discussions during the month you took off. Dicklyon (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a specific issue with my behavior, please let me know (on my talk page - not anywhere else). Vague criticisms like this are nothing but personal attacks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Text-mining Wikipedia for misspelled words

You may be interested in this external article.

• Text Mining Wikipedia for Misspelled Words — Jon's View

—Wavelength (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomic (rule-changing game)

Today I discovered the article "Nomic" (permanent link here). The article begins with the following text.

Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.

— Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, p. 362.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My first encounter of the word Nomic was at Wikipedia and Dark side editing. My original decision was to omit mentioning this, out of respect for your limited time, but afterward I decided to make the link available to you to follow if you choose to do so, although I understand that you may be too busy to visit either that page or the article "Nomic".
—Wavelength (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You should know that you are a favourite Wikipedian of mine, Wavelength; and that I have no problem with your posts here. I hope you will excuse my greeting them with silence when I have nothing to say in response. This time, I point out that "nomic" is often pronounced as a homophone of "gnomic"; but it is better pronounced differently, because the "o" comes from an omicron, not an omega as in "gnomic". Compare, after all, its occurrence as an element in "economic", "astronomical", and the rest. Not that this consideration settles things by itself, of course, in the circuitous flux of language change. We should look to the vicissitudes of "physiognomic" (started out with a gamma, lost it, then acquired a "g"), "metagnomic" (with gamma, but surely with the "o" now influenced by the schwa rendering in "metagnomy": /mɛˈtægnəmi/, or what you will).

I have my own meta-games with "nomic" and its cousins, and this alone would preclude my having time for the game discussed at Nomic.

See also -nomics, where I am now removing the entry Physiognomy (and see that article, for its etymology).

Noetica^Tea? 22:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Your silence is not a problem.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:TITLE

This is not a threat, but it is a final warning. I hope you understand and appreciate the difference.

The following discussion refers to the V1 and V2 wordings of "recognizability" at WP:TITLE.

Version 1: Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic?

Version 2: Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic?

Wikipedia_talk:TITLE#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording and the section just above it involved about 12 editors participating in a discussion about which of these two versions better represented actual practice, and Version 1 was overwhelmingly preferred.

Those who stated V1 was more accurate than V2 were: Kotniski, EdChem, PBS, Kai445, B2C, Powers, WhatamIdoing, JCScaliger and Enric Naval. That's 9 editors, and most gave specific reasonsas to why V1 was better, like Kotniski's "We don't expect titles to be recognizable to people who have no familiarity with the subject at all ", and Enric Naval's, "Making all titles recognizable for everybody would force us to create convoluted titles."

There were no arguments made in favor of V2 over V1, though one editor suggested a V3, and one editor expressed support for it as well as V1.

So, a few days ago, per that discussion, I restored the V1 wording: [7].

Yet, today, despite nothing being stated anywhere even beginning to suggest any change in consensus, you restored V2 here. I reverted, referring you to the above-linked section, and warning you that if you reverted again I would file an AN/I, yet you reverted me again. [8] with comment, "Revert in good faith, and despite continued threats against me; there is current dicussion and the section is disputed by several participants; see Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Fresh_debate:_recognisability_and_related_questions". The discussion in that section you referenced has no bearing on this particular wording, and no substantive objection to V1 has been made there either.

This is your final warning. Unless you revert yourself within five minutes of me saving this comment, I will explain all this in an AN/I (mostly a copy/paste of this comment). I suspect your editing of policy which goes so blatantly against clear consensus will not be seen very favorably by an uninvolved admin, so I suggest you avoid that by reverting. Up to you. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, B2C. I'm about to go out. I've given that only a cursory reading. Let me get back to you when I have time, OK? O, I read enough to establish that we have a different understanding of history, and a different understanding of how to present it impartially. I'll leave you with that for now.

Best wishes,

♥ Noetica^Tea? 07:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps you've left, so I've reverted you a second and final time. I will file an AN/I rather than revert a 3rd time, if necessary. Hopefully it won't be necessary.

FYI, there is also a discussion about this here. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, to avoid different "understandings of history", I try to stick to facts. So, I've simply listed the facts, along with relevant diffs, and it's all accurate as far as I know. If I got the facts wrong, or left out something significant, please let me know how and where. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's about the New Year in Noetica's down-under part of the world, so he's probably not attending wikipedia right now. But you did leave out some material facts, like that you started this mess by re-inserting a version of a guideline provision that had never been discussed, and did so with no hint of discussion no hint of prior discussion yourself. And you omitted the fact that when I tried to start an RFC discussion about it, you turned it into a divisive two-version ballot and filled in the votes for a bunch of editors who you took to be on your side, based on their comments before the RFC, thereby eliminating any chance of the thoughtful discussion that I had hoped to get going instead of the ongoing two-version revert way. You screwed the pooch. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question - the initial one that was reverted -- was about changing the simplified V2 wording back to the Pre-May V1 wording. I did start a discussion about that, with a specific proposal, at WT:AT#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost.

Just a few hours later, while that discussion was progressing along, and in a direction contrary to your viewpoint, you coincidentally (?) started a closely related RFC just below it, effectively cutting off the discussion about the proposal I started. Now people arriving for the RFC would not see my proposal. Whether that was your intent or not, it killed the discussion about my proposal (PBS made the last comment at 20:17, your opening comment in the RFC section is 21:48), so of course I summarized the V1 vs V2 issue at the RFC section, and summarized the discussion so far about that. Then discussion there continued about V1 vs V2, and V1 was unanimously favored. The fact remains that even now, over a week later, no one has made a single coherent statement favoring V2 over V1, and yet you, or at least Noetica, is insisting on the V2 wording. This is outrageous. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You also forgot to mention that your change to the guideline was motivated by an ongoing dispute. And then were you surprised that the guy you were arguing with preferred to see some discussion about it first? Instead you turned it into a two-way contest between buzz bombs and rockets. You ignored all the comments from people who objected, because they wouldn't take sides in your armaments contest. After you got everyone worked up, you refused to allow a fresh calm start in an RFC. You say you treat people civilly and respectfully, but the behaviour is not consistent with those words. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And did I mention that you forgot to note that the pre-May wording, as you call it, had never been discussed, not even a little, on a talk page, until the discussion that led to changing it to what you call V2? Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher needed!

I've reached the end of my conceptual abilities with this one, and the interesting related article mentioned by the other editor: Talk:Women_in_development_approach#Requested_move. Tony (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and not such a philosopher's job: am I not picking up something in my expression of ridicule here. Tony (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have commented at the first one, and opposed. The second one has been closed. There should a new RM for that one, since the full range of titles on Wikipedia that include "earworm" was not considered (see Earworm (disambiguation), and available, compelling usage information is absent. The title ought to be Haunting melody (now relegated to a redirect for Earworm).

Noetica^Tea? 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Restrictive "which" without a comma

In a post by you at 01:42, 17 September 2011, you said the following to me.

By the way, I am a little surprised at your use of which in your last sentence. I thought you were among those of us who distinguish which and that in relative constructions.

If the distinction is between people and things, I use who and whom and that for people, and I use which and that for things. If the distinction is between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, I use which and that, both without a comma, for restrictiveness, and I use which with a comma for non-restrictiveness.
My copy of The Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language—International Edition, which is a few decades old, says the following in the usage section of its entry "that".

"That is now largely confined to restrictive clauses, …
Many also employ which (for that) to introduce clauses that are clearly restrictive."

—Wavelength (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-restrictive "which" without a comma

In a post by you at 21:48, 29 December 2011, you said the following.

Note my "which" unaccompanied by a comma but intended non-restrictively, deployed opportunistically for political purposes.

I am curious to know more about those purposes. (Such a statement from you seems to be out of character.) However, if you decline to divulge that information, then I respect your decision to decline.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength, here I respond for the preceding section also.

I am an advocate of using that and which differently in relative constructions. To put it approximately, grammar allows either of them to express restrictions:

1. "Yesterday" is the saddest song that he sang to make us weep.

2. "Yesterday" is the saddest song which he sang to make us weep.

Saddest song is restricted or narrowed: not the saddest song globally, but the saddest from a set sung by him to make us weep. As far as grammaticality goes, 1 and 2 are equally acceptable. But if the relative construction is to supply additional information (and not to limit the extension), only which is acceptable:

3. "Yesterday" is the saddest song[,] which he sang to make us weep.

That comma is optional; but in a straightforward sentence like 3 it is far more common to include it.

Those insisting on the equivalence and equal utility of 1 and 2 insist that the comma is what marks 3 as unrestricted. But there is a second account of 1 and 2. Many (especially Americans) hold that 1 is most apt for expressing restriction, since 2 and 3 are distinguishable only by the comma, and that is a heavy burden for punctuation to bear – given the other roles the versatile comma must play. I am on their side. In many situations a comma would be ill advised, and which can convey the intention by itself (especially if we consistently avoid using restrictive which – the which of 2 – in our writing):

4. Unsuitable for sculpture are chalk which is too soft, lead which is too malleable, and palladium which is too expensive.

Each component relative construction is unrestrictive; we don't mean just the soft chalk, we mean that all chalk is soft. In the practice of a which–that indifferentist, commas would have to be deployed like this (given a fixed sequence of words, perhaps spoken, for us to render in written form):

5. Unsuitable for sculpture are chalk, which is too soft, lead, which is too malleable, and palladium, which is too expensive.

To my eye that is awkward. Of course there are alternative punctuations. Here's one:

6. Unsuitable for sculpture are: chalk, which is too soft; lead, which is too malleable; and palladium, which is too expensive.

To me that looks congested and forced. So does this:

7. Unsuitable for sculpture are chalk (which is too soft), lead (which is too malleable), and palladium (which is too expensive).

Good locations for commas normally correspond well with good pauses, if we were to speak the sentence; but we do not always pause in unrestrictive constructions. 4 corresponds with a very natural spoken rhythm; 5, 6, and 7 are as awkward in speech as they are on the page, if we render the commas and opening parentheses as pauses.

The matter is hugely controversial, with many linguists who should know better arguing as if grammaticality settled everything, and many style experts who do know better arguing that it does not. The account I give above is much simplified; in the real world of writing and editing there are far more difficult choices to make. But a default distinction between the relatives that and which is extremely useful, and it is folly to deny its value on ideological or "political" grounds.

Noetica^Tea? 03:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles

Hi, I find it rather bizarre that a normally hyper-reasonable editor should be acting this way, so I guess you must have got the wrong end of the stick over this thing at Article Titles. If you look at the most recent RfC on the matter (linked to in my edit summary) you'll see clear support for the version that I restored. I don't see how it's remotely controversial to implement the result of that. --Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hi. I invite you to consider alternative explanations, Kotniski. I am not interested in what you find bizarre in my recent edit (which as I next explained is in fact about a section, not the lead). There are many aspects of editors' conduct that I find bizarre, too; but we don't need to talk about that here.

I have again and again stressed the need for sound process and respect at talkpages. I do not appreciate demands like this one earlier on my talkpage after my good-faith reversion to maintain stability in policy, while a discussion was proceeding:

"This is your final warning. Unless you revert yourself within five minutes of me saving this comment, I will explain all this in an AN/I [...]"

It is not my role to limn here with you the cluster of conduct issues that threat represents; and I doubt that I could succeed if you have not already understood. Please stop insisting on retention of what you inserted into WP:TITLE in 2010: with no adequate edit summary, no attempt to assay or develop consensus, and – as far as anyone has been able to determine – no discussion. When it did eventually come to notice on the talkpage, it was altered after being discussed: publicly, openly, with no dissent.

This is not an invitation to a long conversation, with you or anyone else who wants to go over yet again what we have traversed at WT:TITLE. I see that you have initiated a fresh proposal there, with an opportunity for a new start without old prejudices, indignation, and swift appeals to WP:AN or WP:ANI. That is all counterproductive, and cannot result in durable, widely respected policy or guidelines. I will join in discussion myself, if I find that it is properly managed and genuinely new. If it is not, I must reluctantly reconsider what remedies might be available.

My best wishes to you; and thank you for your diligent efforts at WP:MOS, by the way.

Noetica^Tea? 11:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't address the original (and perhaps relatively minor) question of your revert at WP:AT. There was a recent RfC, there was a clear result; surely you don't object to my now implementing that result? If you're interested in sound process at talk pages, then surely it's pretty fundamental that the decisions that get made there are not thwarted by edit warring (you would not tolerate this sort of behaviour at MOS, I'm sure).--Kotniski (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a short-shrift travesty of a sabotaged RFC that proved nothing, accompanied by a referral to WP:ANI and threats of more, and a multitude of irregularities. You already know that is my opinion of it. If people at that page want to see how an RFC can be done so that views are respected and genuine consensus is brought out, I can show them. But with behaviour such as we see at WT:TITLE these days, I am not holding my breath. As at WT:MOSCAPS, I'll just watch for a while. But I reserve the option of reverting in good faith, if I judge that any substantive modifications are railroaded into policy or style guidelines.

Please think first before posting here again. Are you really interested in my answers? I'm not interested in providing them if you refuse to take on board what has already been said, in other forums.

Noetica^Tea? 12:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything irregular about the RfC. There are other places to make complaints about threats etc., but any threats don't seem to have affected the on-topic discussion, which proceeded perfectly normally, and reached a clear conclusion that I'm now simply trying to implement (I don't think it makes much difference to anything myself, but as a matter of principle, consensus decisions need to be respected).--Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR at WP:TITLE

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Cute! Thanks. I don't get many of those.

I have explained my good-faith action rather fully in edit summaries, as anyone can see from the history of the affected page, WP:TITLE. See also admin Kwami's userpage. See also recent sections on this issue at WT:TITLE, where I intend to resume my involvement once due process is established, civility is restored, and threats (such as yours above on my talkpage, and elsewhere) are explicitly withdrawn. Let there be calm, unprejudiced discussion that respects the truth concerning those important provisions in policy. They are routinely appealed to in RM discussions, and need careful deliberation before being altered.

Best wishes to you.

Noetica^Tea? 06:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ♥

I'm tired of your games. Good luck. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Noetica_reported_by_User:Born2cycle_.28Result:_.29. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxonian guides

If you have NHR (2005), ODWE (2005) and OGS (2002) in their latest individual incarnations, it's safe to ditch OSM (2003), then? Or is the OGS included in ODWE (2005) the same as the last separate OGS (2002) and the version in OSM (2003), meaning one only needs current copies of NHR (2005) and ODWE (2005)? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 

Well, NHR (2005) and ODWE (2005; strictly "NODWE", since it has "new" in the title) represent the current Oxford line on style matters. As far as I can tell, there is no difference in content between OSM (a one-off combination) and its two component works as published separately (OGS and the earlier ODWE). Note that the American and British publication dates for those might differ slightly; but again, I think there is no difference in content.

Where they differ from the earlier publications, NHR (2005) and ODWE (2005) "supersede" those. Still, the earlier publications are valuable because 1) they illustrate points of fluidity or uncertainty, and 2) ODWE (along with its component OGS) gives details that are omitted in NHR.

 

For any perplexed onlookers, here is an account of what I have, use, and recommend for Oxford rulings on style in English:

 

Current suite of Oxford style resources

• New Hart's Rules (2005)

[NHR; core of the suite; equivalent to Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) in America, but much shorter.]

• New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2005)

[(N)ODWE; natural companion to NHR.]

• Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors (2009)

[ODSWE; valuable entries covering scientific usage, with appendixes and a few short essay-like articles; bigger than ODWE.]

• New Oxford Spelling Dictionary (2005)

[OSD; useful as a quick guide to spelling of ordinary words not covered in those other books, and neatly summarising what may be hard to track down in Oxford's many dictionary offerings.]

 

Other resources

• Oxford Style Manual (2003)

[A combined reprint of predecessors of NHR and (N)ODWE, usefully showing some variation and articulating more detail than NHR.]

• Oxford English Dictionary (various years and versions, continually updated)

[OED; in hardcopy it is 20 volumes – the throbbing heart of Oxford's dictionary industry; I use the current version online, and also an earlier version locally on my computers (to research recent historical differences in coverage); an invaluable "authority" on style as well as a great deal more.]

• Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (various editions)

[SOED (and again, "new" is added in fact); one or two volumes, in hardcopy; often better than OED for currency and for cutting through the luxuriant detail when we don't really want it; I have hardcopies, and two versions on each of my computers; the latest CD-ROM version is a great disappointment for its cut-down search features, and for other braindead innovations; strongly recommended: the 1997 CD-ROM version, 1.0.02, which is stable and far more searchable and friendly to anyone older than five.]

• Many other Oxford dictionaries for English (and for several other languages) that I collect, in hardcopy, software, and app form. These are named in a mixed-up way (like the large and handy Oxford Dictionary of English, which I seen even a reference librarian confused by).

 

I hope that helps. All of these can be bought online, of course. Consider, especially if you are outside the US, buying new items from Amazon in the UK: some are cheaper there, and just now there is free delivery (orders totally more than £25) to Australia, India, New Zealand, and South Africa. (Ends on 15 January!)

 

Noetica^Tea? 23:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Mysterious Mr. Quin

Hi. Thanks for your vote of support re fixing the name of the article to The Mysterious Mr Quin. However, in re your comment: "The article needs revision throughout, to establish uniform British usage", I may need some help with that as I am not British myself, nor an expert on MOS. I have removed all the dots after "Mr", of course, but there may be more stuff of which I am unaware. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi QS. Sure, I'll be happy to assist when I can find the time. If I don't get to it sooner, remind me once the RM has been closed, will you?

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I just double checked and tweaked. There are no dots after any "Mr" or "Mrs", but I am not sure about military titles (Colonel, Captain, etc.). Take care. Quis separabit? 23:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Eidos RfC

Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion. Salvidrim! 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Away for three days

Please note, all: I will be mostly unavailable till 23 January.

Noetica^Tea? 12:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Binding RFCs

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. (I acknowledge your temporary absence and I do not require a reply.)
—Wavelength (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Vote-counting and refusing to address arguments in the talk page

Go see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Wikipedia_does_not_use_unnecessary_capitalization, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#The_provisions_on_this_page. You haven't addressed any of the arguments there. Instead you rely in painstakingly vote-counting an older discussion as if this was a democracy, and good arguments didn't count at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can see the flaws in such a wild accusation, Enric – except of course those who refuse any true dialogue and have approximately one theme on which to harp: "reliable sources". I clearly did not merely count votes. Ask yourself (but don't even attempt justifying your behaviour to me, please): when is the last time you set up a long, patient process to gather all competing views, looking for a way to end the blundering stupidity of endless quarrels borne of mistrust and haste? When you do embark on such a project, will you welcome it if others, who have a myopic view of the problem, descend onto premature editing that ignores the slow healing progress that you had begun?

I have a good memory; you were not ready to join such a conciliatory move over en dashes (at Talk:Mexican–American War), when I repeatedly invited you to do so. We could have shortened the saga by months. Eventually order was restored, no thanks to you and a few other short-term-gainers. Now ask yourself: how might things end, at WT:TITLE? What way out of life-wasting squabbles might there be?

I am an incorrigible optimist, so I'll ask you to think about that last question. But note: I said think, not activate your reflex arcs. Come back if you have something useful to say.

Best wishes to you.

Noetica^Tea? 11:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Double standards

You must surely see (and are presumably not ashamed by) your complete double-standards on these two pages - at WP:AT there's an overwhelming majority for one version, yet you keep restoring the other one (for reasons you won't even explain); whereas at MOS:CAPS you keep restoring your recently revised version of the lead (rather than the long-standing one) even though there's only a vague mathematical preponderance in favour of it (indeed I also favour it over the long-standing version, but others have made significant arguments against it). You can see why we are given the impression that the rule here is simply "Noetica will have his way".--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I gather you are replying to my recent post at your talkpage, Kotniski. But I'm afraid the connection with that post eludes me. I do not post at WT:TITLE while I am treated uncivilly and there are unretracted threats against me of litigation at WP:ANI, or similar wikilawyering forums. I have never taken any editor there, nor issued an RFC/U against anyone. I don't take well to such disruptions. As for WT:MOSCAPS, see my new post there.

Also, please keep this discussion in one place. Here, or at your talkpage. I will accept your apology here, but I have no appetite for dispersed chit-chat beyond that.

Noetica^Tea? 11:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No defence against the accusation of double standards, then? I thought not. But I don't have any more time for any more of this - please enter the substantial discussion at either or both pages, preferably with some of the incisive analysis that you're capable of, and hopefully we can make progress on something that matters. Sorry if I've offended you, but you've been way out of line lately, and I think you know it, but in any case it needed to be pointed out (or if you disagree, then too bad, we disagree, but let's get back to discussing issues of substance).--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Again the passive-aggressive refusal to understand, I see. Look at what I said about reasons for not editing at WT:TITLE, look at what I have just said at Kwami's talkpage and at WT:MOSCAPS; then go away, and reflect. Yes, think hard. Take your time. Bother me only if you find something to say that will not take us round in circles. Noetica^Tea? 11:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can't answer the very specific criticisms of your own actions, can you? Anyway, see my last response at Kwami's talk page - I'm not going to indulge any further, so you can insult me again there (and/or here) one more time without fear of response.--Kotniski (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)