User:Wavelength/Miscellaneous information/Noetica

Material on this page is from the history of User talk:Noetica. A format problem was introduced in section 4 (#Wikilinks in lists) and was mentioned in section 26 (#Transclusion affecting left margins of section headings).

The format problem was caused by four colons (::::) preceding {{List navbox}}, which caused a Multiline table in list lint error and indent leak, which I just fixed by removing the colons. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Possessive of a possessive

Hey, Noetica! Thanks for adding that section to the apostrophe article. Awien (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure, Awien. There is so much detail in that article, but I think that it is reasonably set out. There is some work to do on re-ordering the early general material on the possessive apostrophe, perhaps.

I think we should get something on the history of the apostrophe in early printed texts, and so on.

(Vous êtes francophone, je vois. Bien! Moi aussi.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ceci peut vous intéresser, Noetica et Awien: Wikipedia:Do you speak French?.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetization (given names, surnames, domestic name order, thorn)

I would like to alphabetize the entries in each of the subsections of Esperantist#Lists of famous Esperantists, but I am unsure of whether to decide the order according to given names or surnames. Also, Kálmán Kalocsay is in Hungarian name order Kalocsay Kálmán. Also, Þórbergur Þórðarson begins with the letter thorn. I am unsure of how to alphabetize those two Esperantists' names. I consulted the following pages but did not find an answer to any of my questions.

What do you advise me to do, and which page(s) (if any) has/have the answers?
-- Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You have raised good questions, Wavelength. I find these matters hardly addressed at all in WP's guidelines, even though there is a great deal of attention paid to lists of various sorts, and we even have featured lists (like featured article). That omission needs to be addressed systematically.

The best article for alphabetical order is Collation. See the whole, but especially the section Collation#Alphabetical_order, where some of your specific concerns are dealt with. I have also checked New Hart's Rules, and after some reflection I would answer your questions, and some other possible ones, specifically like this (bearing in mind that your list keeps the conventional English order of elements within each name):

Order by surname, regardless of where the surname occurs among the elements of a name.
Use the conventional English adaptation in the order of elements, which sometimes matches the original language's order (Mao Zedong) and sometimes alters it (Béla Bartók).
Use the most common standard English transliteration or variant where foreign characters occur. (I have just now made redirects from Thorbergur Thortharson and Thortharson to Þórbergur Þórðarson, by the way. And I advise a move to Thorbergur Thortharson.)
Generally ignore de, von, van and the like in determining alphabetical order, unless they are fixed to the name without spaces (as in Degas, Vanderbilt, d'Alembert, l'Anglais) or are conventionally treated as an essential part of the surname (as in McDonnell, O'Connor). French le and la, often capitalised in French names, are considered in alphabetising (so Delacroix precedes La Croix). When a prefix is naturalised in English (as in De Quincey, inconsistently spelt with de or De at our article; and Walter de la Mare, name of an English poet), alphabetisation should begin at that prefix.
Treat Mc as if it were spelt Mac.
Use other conventions that might be laid out at Collation.
Allow for conventional exceptions (such as Charles de Gaulle, alphabetised on de; mentioned specifically at CMOS).

So:

Karen Attwood
Étienne d'Angers
Annette Davidson
Charles de Gaulle
Walter John de la Mare
Thomas De Quincey
Ernő Dohnányi
Antoine de Gascogne
Julien Offray de La Mettrie
Yves La Roche
Jean de La Rochelle
Jean Le Maingre
Jean-Marie Le Pen
Craig McCulloch
Avril MacIntyre
Mao Zedong
John Mountford
Thor Rasmussen
Thorbergur Thortharson

I hope that helps. If you want more, let me know.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. I suppose that I am ready to do the alphabetization now, with the edit summary containing a permanent link to this talk page, and with the text "section 4". (I consider it to be likely that some editor in the future will see the new orderings, and will change some of them to more "correct" orderings.) I would like to introduce at WT:MOS essentially the same message that I have here (my first message in this section), possibly with a link to this discussion. However, I want to respect your wishes not to participate at WP:MOS or WT:MOS. Also, I am unsure about what might constitute participation by proxy, and what your thoughts are about that. Therefore, I am awaiting your comments on those matters before I proceed with the alphabetization, or with a possible discussion at WT:MOS.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine, Wavelength. If you want to link this discussion at WT:MOS go right ahead. Or you could put the text of it in a navbox and paste it directly onto the page there:

Something like that. I think navboxes should be used a lot more. They certainly can keep things orderly. Don't hesitate to come back here for more technical discussion as needed. I have a few resources to consult, and the topic interests me.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've refined and corrected things a little in my post above.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done the alphabetization of Esperantist#Lists of famous Esperantists. Ba Jin (listed at Esperantist#Writers) is a pseudonym, which I alphabetized at Ba. Pope John Paul II (listed at Esperantist#Others) is a titled name, which I alphabetized at John. This reminds me of Cardinal, which is used as a middle name/title. It also reminds me of Esquire, which is mentioned last in a name (or maybe I should say "mentioned after a name").

Some telephone directories have all Mc and Mac (and maybe M' ) names in a section between the L section and the M section. Also, Mackenzie (with a lowercase k) could be analyzed as being in the M section, rather than in the section for Mc and Mac. Several Mac names have two forms which differ only as to the capitalization of the next letter.

In my previous work on Wikipedia, I have listed items in ASCII-code order, with numerals before letters. If numerals are ordered as the words they represent, then there is ambiguity with 1492, which could be read as "one thousand four hundred ninety-two" or as "fourteen (hundred) nineteen-two", and likewise with 2009. See User:Wavelength/Articles started, sections 2 to 7.

Recently, when I added M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) to List of environmental lawsuits, I left the order as I had arranged it before, but I noticed another problem: the new entry differed from another one (M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath) in the spacing of the initials. Perhaps one is right and one is wrong, according to a guideline somewhere on Wikipedia.

(All of this is giving me images of crazy quilting.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand your experiencing the crazy-quilting effect. I have edited the lists on the page myself. I do urge a move of Þórbergur Þórðarson to Thorbergur Thortharson; and even without that move, Thorbergur Thortharson would be much better for standard English usage, as in these lists. Such an adaptation is quite normal. We don't refer to Thor Heyerdahl as "Þór", or whatever the original form would be! I have also fixed some punctuation, capitalisation, and the like. The Esperanto word Internacio is best translated as International (SOED, "international": [B. n'] 3 (I-.) Any of various socialist organizations founded for the worldwide promotion of socialism or Communism; spec. = First International, Second International, Third International, Fourth International below. Also, a member of any of these organizations. L19.).

One entry was an error, due to confusion with an almost exact namesake. I removed it (see edit summaries). There are articles for several Russians with that same surname, as opposed to first given name and also surname; and while there is a disambiguation page there is not, so far, a DAB tag at the top of every affected page.

Language and languages were not designed for strictly rational collation such as alphabetising. We do the best we can, in an imperfect universe. I think we have it sorted out well enough this time. The larger matter of making WP guidelines to deal adequately with alphabetising is separate and more problematic.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Links to archived discussions of the Manual of Style

For your convenience, here are links to five discussions which I started because my corrections were challenged. They are listed in the order in which I started them. I understand from your past comments that you would be particularly interested in referring to the second and fourth.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wavelength. Handy for future reference. Don't hesitate to call on me for support, if such corrections are challenged again.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks in lists

I see you are adding some usefuk wikilinks, such as this edit here. However I'm slightly puzzled as to why the link is repeated. I thought we only linked the first instance on WP. Perhaps there is a special reason? Best. --Klein zach 03:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Kleinzach: in an ordinary article that is meant to be read continuously I would link only the first time (with some exceptions). But the article you point to is a list, yes? So it might be consulted only in part. I did hesitate, but this seemed like a reasonable policy. Imagine consulting such a list for a specific purpose, finding that something of interest was not linked, and then having to search to see if it was linked elsewhere.

I am of course happy to have such matters worked out by discussion. Is there a linking policy for lists? What is your response to the rationale I present above?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on the series of (now 30-odd) lists of compositions and operas for some time so I know them well. The problem is that the number and frequency of repeated names, genres, places, theatres etc is infinitely variable, so it is difficult to replace the 'first instance only to be linked' rule with anything better or more flexible, that still makes clear sense to people. Some of these lists are longer than the Mozart. See for example List of operettas by Offenbach. As for a discussion venue, I'm not sure, but we could have a look if you wanted to pursue this. --Klein zach 11:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously more experienced than I am with lists at Wikipedia. But it seems to me that a list is a stark utilitarian resource, like a database. The main objection to duplicated links in ordinary articles is that the "sea of blue" makes for an unpleasant appearance and inefficient reading; but we have different expectations of a list, as I have said. The fact you mention – that equivalent terms take many forms – is a good reason for both standardisation and repetition. I did both, for a few articles, with Teatro Regio Ducal, which occurs in several forms. Ducale can take the standard Italian final -e; Regio-Ducal can occur with a hyphen (especially to our modern eyes, because it looks superficially like a "Franco-Prussian" construction, though it might equally have been Ducal-Regio); the order historically was often Regio Ducal Teatro, rather than the canonic modern Italian order. Consider the permutations!

Where to discuss? This should give us some ideas:

A quick scan through WP:LIST uncovers no explicit guideline for links, but the implication sometimes seems to be that entries consist in part of links. See also the many leads from WP:LINK, I suppose. When I have time I will scan through some of this. We could do some useful work on it, yes?

As you can see above I have been interested in the related topic of alphabetising, prompted by Wavelength. You may be interested in joining some discussion about that, too. See WT:MOS, where Wavelength has taken the issue up. It has not been given the attention it demands, I think. The information is as chaotically distributed as for linking in lists. See leads from Help:Sorting, for a start.

Best wishes.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have raised the topic at this talk page also, since it came up in editing that article also.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the extra links in giant tables... especially if that particular column of the table is not sortable. It can be frustrating trying to scroll up and find the "blue link". DavidRF (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed those additional wikilinks because that was the style already used in a large number of such tables and supported by WP:OVERLINK. I have no firm position in this matter. So far, the group of editors with whom I worked on articles, lists and tables decided to apply WP:OVERLINK, which seemed a safe and defendable position.

However, I now find this sentence at MOS:LINK: "Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own." This seems to say quite clearly that our previous position was wrong. I can live with that, if other editors agree with my reading of that guideline — although I don't think it warrants mass-editing all those lists and adding wikilinks for every instance of Metastasio.:-) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Linking every instance of the Théâtre des Bouffes Parisiens in List of operettas by Offenbach would seem to be massively overdoing it. Some of these lists would simply turn blue if we linked everything, but on the other hand linking a name twice that appears say in screen 3 and then in screen 10 seems sensible. The question is how to make a viable practice out of this. BTW the discussion page for this seems to be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links). --Klein zach 01:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well found, Michael B. So there is a guideline that advocates multiple linking of the sort I had wanted. But why do you say you "I don't think it warrants mass-editing all those lists and adding wikilinks for every instance of Metastasio"? That would be quite a task, surely; but what would warrant reverting such work? I can't see any problem with such linking, only advantages; nor, Kleinzach, can I see any problem with a list or a table should "simply turn blue"! Once more, the general rule against overlinking makes perfect sense for continuous prose in ordinary articles. But these are lists, and they function differently.

I hope there can be more input into this; but my inclination is now to go with the established guideline that Michael has unearthed. (So hard to find these things!) It appears that DavidRF would agree. Any arguments against, other than avoiding a sea of blue for the sake of avoiding a sea of blue? Why, in a list, is a sea of blue any worse than a sea of black? :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is legibility. ~~Also note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) doesn't say anything explicit about this.~~ I'm going to refer this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links). Can we all continue the discussion there? That would be appreciated. --Klein zach 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've struck out what I wrote above - I was confused by the reference to tables rather than lists. --Klein zach 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In a list or a table, immediately accessible linking to further information trumps any marginal consideration of legibility. Marginal? Yes. Once more: a great deal of blue text scattered through running prose hinders reading, but I don't see how it can be a problem in a list or a table, which usually functions like a clearinghouse or an exchange, directing the enquirer to something that is sought. Many of our lists are already mainly blue – or blue interspersed with red. And they serve their purpose all the better for that.

Yes I agree: let's all adjourn to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links), and wrap things up here. Can someone initiate a discussion there? (I'm about to set out on a 500 km drive.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a good trip! BTW, delighted to see you are going in kilometres! --Klein zach 03:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See here. --Klein zach 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Kleinzach. Thanks. I'll join the discussion when I can.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I only meant to say that if the outcome of this discussion is that it's OK to link repeatedly in lists & tables, then it's IMO not worth the effort (=doesn't warrant it) to go and link thousands of terms in them. I didn't mention "reverting" and I thought it had become clear that I now consider my previous revert of multiple wikilinks as not supported by guidelines. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonky Signature

Thanks for the feedback on my signature, –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T–. I did just copy symbols from the list under "Symbols" in the edit function, so I am surprised that they don't read consistenlyt across all systems. I'll see if I can make improvements for tomorrow. ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this signature readable to your system? As far as the previous signature goes, could you see the letters "BL"? ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In both versions I see "BL" once, in the middle. In the earlier version it is flanked by two unknown characters on each side; in the later version, by one on each side.

Theoretically I could adjust the settings in my browser (the latest Firefox), and I might then see what you intend people to see. But that's no use, since many people use browsers even less finely configured than mine!

My advice is to keep it simple – despite my own strange signature. What result are you looking for? There might be another way to get it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for a simple signature (change of Bielle to just BL) with a marker (not a letter) on either side to set it off. If you look on any editing page for the "Symbols" list, there is, mid-way along the line of symbols, a sort of stronger version of << >> after which there is a small square and then a taller rectangle. What I had originally was one of the squares and two rectangles on either side of the BL, creating a sideways overall diamond shape, the "BL" being the widest part of the diamond. My browser is MSE and not configured beyond the factory setting at all. I mistakenly thought if I could see it, then could all those bigger, better, faster browsers. The other objective was to keep the signature to only the symbols so there would not be lines and lines of code. While your signature is lovely to look at, it is a real interruption in reading diffs where it occurs, though yours is not the worst for that, by far. The only important part is that the "BL" be clear; the rest is just decoration and it really doesn't matter how it is read. I appreciate your comments. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)«»¤₳

I see! Sorry about my intrusive signature as it appears in the edit box. I might change it, in fact.

Now, those symbols like << >> are these ones: «». Right? They're guillemets. The French and a few others use them as we use quotation marks. The symbols that follow them look like this to you: ¤₳. Right? But to others like me they don't look like rectangles at all. The first is like a centred "o" with hands and feet set at 90 degrees from each other; and the second looks like an "A" with an extra line through it, to make a "=" with the standard line.

I think you do need to change your browser settings, since you must be having trouble reading many symbols that are used at Wikipedia. Why not ask at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing? They can help you better than I can. :)

By the way, some time ago I stole the rotating ball at your page:

Hope you don't mind; I find it very useful, especially in conversation with Gwinva. Just let me know when you need it back. (AND: Bielle is a great name!)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fascinated: you can't see what I see, but you can show me what I see while describing what you see using the "same" symbol. And you are quite right about what I see and what I intended. (I am pleased to learn about guillemets. I knew the symbols looked familiar but could not place them, which tells you how often I read French aside from menus and road signs.) Even thinking about going to the computing desk gives me knots in my stomach. The first thing they always advise is to get another browser, and then they begin speaking another language entirely. You are thoughtful to be concerned about symbols I must be misreading. So far, I haven't noticed any problems but, and this is a weighty "but", I don't read IPA or math or physics, so I am not sure where I might need to know. (In fact, my general ignorance is profound, which is why I spend so much time reading Wikipedia). As for the rotating ball, you are entirely welcome to use it. I copied it myself from User:Gaius Cornelius's RFA thank-you posts. I have seen some comments on the Ref Desks from Gwinva but have not yet had any conversations with her as far as I recall. I shall be careful to avoid same unless I am also armed with the whirling ball. Do you toss it at her, or is it just a useful distraction? My user name is from a real person; I wouldn't have been born without the help she gave my father when he was shot down over France in WWII. I do honour where I can. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome to remain fascinated; but the explanation for my seeing what you did not see, and what I had not seen earlier, is quite simple. I am now using a different computer, with Firefox differently configured. NOW, though, I can't see the characters in your signature. Have you changed it yet again?

As for configuring your own browser, it should be easy enough. But it may be best to engage some enthusiastic young nerd locally, if you don't like the computer desk here.

It is not compulsory to deploy the whirling ball in dialogue with Gwinva, but it is considered good form.

I am glad that Bielle has a basis in the real world. We had no family friend by the name of Noetica; my people were always a bit iffy about Greek neuter plurals meaning "things of the intellect".

Call again, any time!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Larousse defines the word bielle (a feminine noun) in French as "Pièce d'une machine, qui communique un mouvement." Larousse defines the same word in English as "tie-rod; crank-arm; bielle motrice, connecting-rod (mech.); bielle de soupape, valve push-rod."

Also, w:fr:Bielle is disambiguated to w:fr:Bielle (mécanique) and w:fr:Bielle (Pyrénées-Atlantiques).

There is also the Italian website http://www.bielle.org/, whose main theme seems to be music about rebellion against a capitalistic, militaristic society (according to the text scrolling from right to left).

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Wavelength; I especially like the Italian organization. (I have copied this to my sandbox.) In my case, Bielle was a "pet name", short for Gabrielle. I am not sure what happened to the "r", but Bielle was certainly what she was called, and also how she signed her letters. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:MOS search box

WT:MOS has a new search box. [1] -- Wavelength (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had noticed that. A good thing; every page of that sort should have one.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Away for a couple of days, because of sickness

Yes, a nasty virus. Can't eat, drink water (without dreadful consequences); dizzy. Well again soon, I'm sure. Gotta go! Back to bed.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Take care, look after #1, get well, and don't worry about us. We'll muddle through without you - somehow. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Get well soon!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwinva (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Heart and Soul Music: Quality Music for Nursing Homes. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A wikibreak

The illness I mention above morphed into a general aversion to Wikipedic involvement. Hence my silence. Right now I am away from fast internet access and occupied with other things. I expect to resume at least desultory engagement here in about a week.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Noetica, if I caused you to push yourself too much in your contributions to Wikipedia, please accept my apology. I am thinking of your description of me as your "learned and fiercely industrious rival in obsessiveness" [07:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)] at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 13#Rhyming dictionary made of paper. Later, you said: "As for the general points above, I am tempted to thud a few heavy theoretical resources down on the table, and join in some serious analysis. But I will not." [11:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)] at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 13#Norms of rhyme.

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 5#Sanskrit is alive (not dead); Sanskrit is a living language., you said to me: "So much work you put into these things! Too much, do you think?" [06:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)] and "I like the 'linkfarms' you make a habit of providing, but I worry about the amount of time they must take you to produce." [23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)].

I was very much impressed in a positive sense by your work at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 9#Numbers and Hyphenation, and it probably would have required more time from me than it did from you to prepare that information. [13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)] Some other contributions from you have been equally impressive.

It seems to me that, although we have some overlap in interests and abilities, each of us also has areas of more talent than the other one. It would be good if neither of us sensed a need to strive too hard, whether in competition or in cooperation.

I have been looking forward to working with you on a style guide subpage for collation, because, without your help, I would probably be left to pursue it alone or abandon my efforts. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My dear colleague, thank you for getting in touch. I have been an unconscionable time dead to Wikipedia. Or apparently so: I do still keep a detached watch on developments.

Please do not feel that you are responsible for any of my present aboulia and listlessness. Apart from other concerns in life taking precedence for me now, I have found engagement at Wikipedia less satisfying than it used to be.

Yes, the work on lists is important. We would be good at it together, I'm sure; and we would both learn from the experience, which I regard as one of the best rewards available. But it would be an ordeal and a half – one that I am not prepared to endure at this stage.

I see that you have chosen not to allow contact by email. Myself, I do enable email: but I prefer to communicate with very few through that channel. Like you, I suspect, I prefer to seal off my wikilife from my life as an air-breather. In your case, though, I would be delighted to communicate, since I am sure that we can trust each other and that we have things to talk about. You know I admire enormously your ingenious and industrious work. I have told you so, I think.

Initiate contact with me if you want to. Otherwise, wait. I will probably be back sometime, when I have decided on the form and extent of my future involvement here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take your time in making your decisions. There is plenty to keep me busy, both on and off Wikipedia. That WT:LIST section has not been archived, and, if it becomes archived, I can copy the archived section to a new unarchived section.

You might find it beneficial to make lists, on paper, of the pages, activities, contributors, and experiences which you have found to be most satisfying, moderately satisfying, and least satisfying. That might help you decide your future involvement.

When you are ready to work on developing a set of guidelines on alphabetization and collation for editors to use on Wikipedia, you can leave a message at User talk:Wavelength/Sandbox 4/Alphabetization and collation, which is on my watchlist.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[I edited my comment of 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC). -- Wavelength (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)]

Please leave your message at the section "Fourth discussion". -- Wavelength (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to read (possibly re-read) Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great

and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. -- Wavelength (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading Dunbar's number (permanent link) and references 7 and 8. I accidentally discovered the "Rule of 150" on Amazon. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You might gain useful insights by reading Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Realistically, doing so might influence you either to stay with Wikipedia or to leave. I am not trying to influence you to leave, but, if you do leave and if you start editing another Internet website, I for one would be interested to know what the website is. I might want to make a similar switch. Today, I saw huge changes made to the article Love at first sight and unconvincing explanations in the edit summaries. One person's "cleanup" is something else to another person.

When I started to edit Wikipedia, I was somewhat aware of problems related to different viewpoints about content. Therefore, I made most of my contributions by adding internal links in "See also" sections, and by compiling lists of links. However, those are susceptible to being challenged. An easy way to contribute might seem to be by correcting mistakes in spelling, punctuation, and so forth, especially where there is no difference of viewpoint about what is correct. However, if an article or a section of an article disappears, then such corrections to it are also lost. Deciding how best to invest time and effort in improving Wikipedia can be a challenge. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia - The Missing Manual links to Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The manual was authored by User:John Broughton, who also created Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:AaronSw (Aaron Swartz) authored the article Who Writes Wikipedia? (Swartz 2006).

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm authored the 2009 book The Wikipedia Revolution (subtitle: How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia) and Knowledge by consensus is Wikipedia's downfall | Opinion | The First Post, an online article in The First Post about Wikipedia:Consensus. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see the ten-page paper "Scaling Consensus: Increasing Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance" at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanScalingConsensus.pdf. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[I revised my last message. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)]

Academic studies about Wikipedia has a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies, and both pages have information which may be helpful to you. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost sometimes reports on external studies about Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives has a search box. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are three additional essays about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is succeeding, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia may or may not be failing. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays has a link to Wikipedia:About essay searching. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I found Decision Making Techniques and Decision Making Skills - Mind Tools. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to The Wikipedia Manual of Style: A Study in Governance » Siolon. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Help proofreading

I am working on a list and wanted to know if you would proofread the intro text for me? If available, I would appreciate your feedback. Regardless, thank you for your help on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kilbad, I have been absent from duty at Wikipedia for reasons that I regard as compelling enough. Can't help right now, but might later.

Best wishes to you.

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

Noetica, I proofread the five paragraphs of the introduction and made three corrections. I might have changed "based on" to "on the basis of" or to "according to" and I might do so in the future after giving the matter more thought (some might consider such a change to be a sign of pedantry), but I left it in its two occurrences for the present time. You might wish to proofread the introduction in the future. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have revised the fourth paragraph, removing "based on" in both occurrences. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Electron PR request

Greetings! The article Electron has been posted for a second peer review. We have attempted to address all of the concerns that came up during the first FAC for this article. As you participated in this FAC and did not support the article's promotion to featured status, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look and see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help right now, RJ. Other things on my mind, and I am therefore not active on Wikipedia for a while. Maybe later.

Best wishes to you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I proofread the article soon after I saw the request. You might find errors which I missed or which were added after I proofread it.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alert: "What's wrong with MOS"

I have some bad news: the possible demise of WP:MOS. You can find out more at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What's wrong with MOS (permanent link). This reminds me of Talk:Lists of environmental topics#New criteria for the lists of environmental topics and Talk:Lists of environmental topics#Reply to above section. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiTrust

You may be interested in the following external links, which are related to the reliability of Wikipedia and of wikis in general.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-31/In the news#WikiTrust may be added to Wikipedia. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard space, em dash, en dash, and maybe more

That was excellent work done on the hard space! When I saw Category:Hyphen Luddites, I realized that similar work could be helpful in regard to the em dash and the en dash. However, I am by no means urging you to begin that task; rather, I am suggesting it as something that you might want to do if and when you are ready. Anyway, it might be good (for someone) to compile a list of all such entities and deal with them together for the best results. I am posting this message before I forget about it. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Related discussions:

A recording, a score, and a portrait

The same editor who created the aforementioned Category:Hyphen Luddites (which I dislike) has also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration/A recording, a score, and a portrait (which I like). Its purpose is explained at User:Durova/Recording score portrait. Apparently, likes and dislikes seldom (if ever) correspond completely between any two individual persons. High expectations (including mine) can lead to disappointments. Also, low expectations can lead to pleasant surprises. Anyway, I am mentioning this project because of your interest in classical music. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

More successful argumentation

As someone whose patience has been tested by many difficult discussions, you can probably benefit by studying these 15 pages. All of us can improve in our thinking and communication skills, therefore we can all benefit by from frequent references (with links) to specific principles relevant to specific points of disagreement.

In the case of the book Straight and Crooked Thinking, I highly recommend that you visit the web page version of 15 October 2007 archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.246.dk/38tricks.html while you can, and that you download the web page to your computer and preserve a copy (or several copies) on paper. It would be even better if you could obtain a copy of the book itself.

In these matters, one does well to remember to have (despite the difficulties) an outlook of truth versus falsehood and of logic versus illogic, rather than an outlook of editors competing against each other. One assumes good faith, one tries to work with another editor (or with other editors) and with truth and logic, and one hopes that everyone is open-minded. If someone resists truth and logic to the point of self-embarrassment, can that be the fault of someone with only good intentions? (Every editor has a head and a heart.) You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink. You can lead a person to truth and logic, but you can not make that person think a certain way. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) .......... [I corrected my message. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)]

Academic excellence

Ling Nut (permanent link here) has made these comments.

I would say that writing and research are hard work. I would love to say that writing and research are hard work. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that my idea of "hard work" is vastly different from many other editors' idea of what those words mean. The fundamental problem with Wikipedia – and it is a problem that our reliance on policies, guidelines and consensus only exacerbates – is that far too few Wikipedians understand the hard work involved in writing and researching well.

There is some relevant information in the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and the book Dumbest Generation.
In a global society which is collectively declining intellectually, physically, morally, and socially, and in which people often overestimate achievements of academic excellence, altruistic excellence, artistic excellence, and athletic excellence in themselves and in others, there is a challenge to find the gentle but effective means to bring people to an adequate awareness of the shocking realities.
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ---- [I revised my message. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)]
Additional relevant information is available in a book which can be downloaded from the deliberate dumbing down of america {sic}. It was with some reluctance that I referred earlier (at 19:42, 8 June 2009) to another book, in whose title the adjective dumb has been used with the meaning "stupid". It is likewise with some reluctance at this time that I am referring to the website of a book in whose title dumb has been used as a verb. I do not wish to promote those usages. The author could have used the title Deliberately Making America Less Intelligent. (The German adjective dumm means "stupid" and the German adjective stumm means "dumb, silent".) -- Wavelength (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to an article about a book which describes a challenge to modern education and to society generally.

Unable to focus? Welcome to our distracted society's attention deficit -- Wavelength (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Another review of the same book is linked to from the external links of the article Distraction. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Complications with ly

In my searches for and removal of incorrectly used hyphens, I have encountered some constructions where I hesitated. I am listing the types here in no particular order, but I am numbering them for easy reference.

overly hyphenated with a following adjective, for example, overly hyphenated with dependent. I try to avoid the word overly but I understand that it has gained some degree of acceptance by dictionaries. I see three options: (a) removing the hyphen, (b) removing the ly and leaving the hyphen, and (c) removing both the ly and the hyphen.
similarly hyphenated with sized, and many more combinations from many adverbs and many adjectives. English has many combinations derived from adjective and noun, such as noble-minded and kind-hearted. Even though the second element in many of such constructions can also be used a verb, I understand these constructions to have been formed from their use as nouns. Nowadays, people speak of computer users resizing windows, but in the example I gave, I still regard sized as derived from the noun. I see two options: (a) removing the hyphen, and (b) removing the ly and leaving the hyphen.
early·to·mid·November in various hyphenations. Of course, separately mid takes a hyphen, but early does not. This is not quite a case of two hyphens, of which one is suspended. (Another construction has mid at the beginning: mid·to·late·August.)
an early·to·mid·19th·century event and a mid·19th·century event. (I have used an interpunct to represent an indeterminate or unspecified character which is either a space or a hyphen.)

I am interested to know what you may have to say about these constructions. Incidentally, guidelines for these situations could be added to the Manual of Style. It says: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here". There might be enough possible guidelines for a new subpage, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (hyphens)". -- Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Wavelength. I'll deal with each of the cases you raise.

1. Overly

I too avoid this adverb, concerning which OED says: "Apart from O.E., Sc. and U.S. until the 20th cent., often regarded as an Americanism in the U.K." In fact, MOS includes it as contested vocabulary, so there is, as you pretty well suggest, the option of rewording to bring an article into conformity with MOS.

It is indeed an adverb (except in an obsolete adjectival sense; see the separate entry in OED). Is it like early? MOS says: "Some such dual-purpose words (like early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs, since they are not formed by addition of -ly to an independent current-English adjective." OED has two relevant headword listings for over: as an adjective, and as an adverb. OED derives overly from the adverb, and working strictly from our guideline, that might settle things: it is like early, and there should be a hyphen in an overly-concerned parent. But it could be argued the other way, using a different interpretation of our wording "formed by": However irrelevant the adjectival over might seem, that adjective does exist (unlike *ear, for early), and overly might be considered notionally "formed by" addition of -ly to it.

Beyond both lines of reasoning is the practical matter of clear unambiguous communication. Given the immutable sequence of words an overly·concerned parent (perhaps immutable because transcribed from speech, with me supplying the punctuation), I would favour an overly concerned parent. My ratio decidendi: The arguments for and against the hyphen are close to equal, so choose the way that adheres to the more general rule, given that there is no likelihood of misreading in modern English.

If I were free to change the words themselves, I would certainly prefer an over-concerned parent.

2. Similarly·sized + noun, etc.

As a preliminary, there is a subtle difference in meaning between similarly·sized dolls and similar·sized dolls. The difference is apparent from an example that uses a different participle (or adjective): similarly·formed dolls (dolls that have been formed in similar ways) as opposed to similar·formed dolls (dolls with similar forms). (Try shaped, too.) So sized itself can be interpreted with two distinct meanings: "having a size (n)"; and "having undergone a process of sizing (verb, gerund; but derived from the noun size)". Then again, the precise analysis of sizing, formed, minded, hearted, and their kind is a matter of one's theoretical orientation. It need not detain us more.

Now consider the case of similarly·sized dolls as a matter of practice, and try to apply our present guidelines. They plainly call for similarly sized dolls. If the words may be changed, however, I might well prefer similar-sized dolls, as a simpler expression of the probable meaning.

3. Early·to·mid·November

Mid has become strangely problematic for the sort of reason you adduce. ~~RL Trask, in the Penguin Guide to Punctuation, says that mid no longer needs a hyphen after it, but takes a space instead. Though I respect this eminent linguist's book, I disagree.~~ [Correction: It is the later Penguin book How to Punctuate that says that about mid. So does New Hart's Rules, along with its immediate precursor the Oxford Style Manual. Trask I take to task for other peccadilloes.–N] So do most style guides. But the best guides also call for reduction of the hyphenation that a strict application of the rules might bring. I echo that call; so I might favour early to mid- November, or some such compromise. (Controversial! But can you see the logic of it? Compare: It was in mid- to late August; and the mid- to late-August sales figures, as opposed to versions we would get "by the book": the mid-to-late-August-sales figures; or the mid-to-late-August sales figures, if mid-to-late-August is construed as coordinate with sales in modifying figures.) The details might depend on practice elsewhere in the text. I would not like to see guidelines on these unusual problems at MOS; they would dilute the core principles that we want to drive home (see below for my views on the level of detail at MOS).

4. An early·to·mid·19th·century event; a mid·19th·century event

Adapting the reasoning I present above, I might favour this form: an early- to mid-19th-century event (also a mid- to late-19th-century event); but certainly a mid-19th-century event.

You write:

Incidentally, guidelines for these situations could be added to the Manual of Style. It says: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here". There might be enough possible guidelines for a new subpage, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (hyphens)".

Well, I myself composed and inserted the proviso that you have just quoted from MOS. I do not favour a separate subpage. The politics and logistics make such things impractical, and editors consulting our guidelines are already led into a labyrinth. I want generally less detail at MOS (and subpages) than we have now; I want the guidelines to be theoretically well-founded [sic!], but practical (bearing in mind the dispositions and limitations of WP editors) and implementable and stable (bearing in mind the psychology and sociology of editors who form our guidelines). I also want the relevant content articles (like Apostrophe, Comma, Hyphen) to include improved, lucid surveys of pre-existing published guidelines, so that they can be systematically appealed to in MOS. We do this already to an extent, against some resistance. I would resist that resistance.

Much more could be said. But I will not say it here!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Noetica, for your helpful reply, over which I have pored several times. Now I have some supplementary comments, where the numbers correspond to the earlier numbers.

1. When I thought about the rendering an overly concerned parent (transcribed from speech), I wondered whether it would be good to insert [sic] after that sequence of words. More generally, I wondered about how far one might go in using that device, if one does not wish to endorse "incorrect" forms but also does not wish to impose personal preferences or a "national" variety of English. There seems to be an indistinct boundary.

2. An editor adding words to an article can simplify the work of a proofreader by avoiding ambiguous expressions, such as similarly·sized dolls. I made a decision about probable meaning in this instance.

3. About the third type of construction and your analysis of it, I have three comments.

(a) Language users tend to complicate analysis and regularity when they accumulate word strings before the words that those word strings modify, instead of leaving them after the modified words with all of the original prepositions and conjunctions.

(b) Innovative style setters might use those accumulative word-string adjectives with hyphens for the junctures at the lowest level, and en dashes for the junctures at the level above that, and something else for juncture(s) at any level(s) above that.

(c) Other editors may not perceive my choice of hyphenation when the flow of text is re-arranged at line breaks, so I might want to use hard hyphens. They may not be familiar with hanging (suspended) hyphens, or they may not perceive that they have been used in particular instances, so I might want to use hard spaces when I use suspended hyphens.

4. By your expression "I might favour this form", I understand that you might decide on a case-by-case basis. Also, I understand that you might not object if I followed a strict application of the rules.

Language has many irregularities and many ambiguities. (People speak about reasonableness, intuition, and common sense, but perspective is an individual phenomenon.) Language is not mathematics. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I respond to each of your points, preserving the original numbers (now added to my earlier reply, too).

1. There are several such indistinct boundaries in copyediting. I advise against adding "[sic]" after overly, which is after all widely accepted. Generally, I would add "[sic]" only:

where the reader would otherwise be uncertain whether the peculiarity was original or introduced; and
where the peculiarity is noteworthy in some relevant way, and is not signalled by any other means for the reader's attention.

2. Writers' poor practice is one of the main raisons d'être for editors. I am not sure what point you are making when you refer to "a proofreader". This is not a term I like to use; many use it to mean copyeditor, but I would reserve it for someone who merely checks for "mistranscriptions" or simple typos. See OED, at "proof, n.":

proof-read v. trans., to read (printer's proofs) and mark errors for correction; hence proof-read ppl. a.; proof-reader, one whose business is to read through printer's proofs and mark errors for correction; = reader 2b

The point about similar[ly]·sized dolls is extraordinarily subtle, and beyond the scope of most copyeditors, let alone proofreaders.

3. On your three comments:

(a) Yes, it is often better to avoid complex attributive modifiers. Punctuation struggles to keep up with such excesses, and it is often best to make the sentence more simple with predications instead.

(b) Some guides advocate en dashes for the level higher than hyphens, but there is no consensus about the details. CMOS is steadfastly against en dashes generally; ~~so its many devotees, and the devotees of its many derivatives, do not have this option available.~~ [Again my memory did not serve me well. On checking, I am reminded that CMOS does accept the en dash for use at a higher level than hyphens. It does not allow, or at least does not give examples of, en dashes with spaces on both sides – or of any "suspended" en dashes. Some derivatives of CMOS, I think, are even less adaptable; and in other ways, CMOS stands against the en dash.–N] For higher levels again, we are in even less charted territory. Rewrite, if that is acceptable; or make do creatively but cautiously with the more usual resources (compare what I propose above, with fewer hyphens than "by the book").

(c) In my earlier response to you I used the hard space judiciously, when I had to exhibit a hyphen with a following space. But we should not do that in ordinary editing. A hyphen with a space following is like a word with a space following: we do not strain to make the space visible if the word happens to fall at the end of a line! So: no hard space with suspended hyphens in standard use.

4. [First a pedantic point of usage, which you may not mind my making. I advise against on a ... basis. I nearly always find a redundancy in it. Why not simply case by case, instead of on a case-by-case basis?] When I wrote "I might favour this form" I was happy to be read in either (or both) of two ways:

I might decide ~~case-by-case~~case by case[Amended. See my next contribution, below.–N], whenever such a rare and specific problem arises.
I might come to such a decision more firmly and robustly, after more careful examination of the issues – and of related issues that need to be thought about at the same time.

As for your strict application of "the rules", I proffer two cautions:

The rules that we make are imperfect, conventional, and provisional. Some people can live with this as an inevitable fact of life, at Wikipedia and generally. Others are seriously unsettled by it. I advise you to live with it as an inevitable fact of life.
We can make ourselves egregiously unpopular if we impose such rules too relentlessly and draconianly on writers (and indeed, on readers). While I will accept being unpopular in the interest of some higher good, here there is no higher good than clear expression that does not draw attention to itself. The best editing is like invisible mending. Ars est celare artem.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your explanations and advice. For this present reply, I pondered very much what to say and how to say it. Using good judgement in making comments sometimes takes a lot of time. There is probably still room for improvement. The same numbers apply as before.

1. It seems to me that appropriate use of "[sic]" with quoted errors can improve a reader's opinion about the accuracy of Wikipedia. Also, it can help a later editor to avoid wrongly "correcting" the quoted text.

2. My point in referring to "a proofreader" was that a Wikipedian can simplify the work of another Wikipedian (one checking the text of the former one) by avoiding ambiguous expressions. The word proofreader is more familiar to me than the word copyeditor is, and until this discussion I have probably never studied both words closely in comparison with each other. In my efforts to learn more about how they differ, I consulted many resources, including the following.

proofreader - OneLook Dictionary Search and 13 dictionaries
copyeditor - OneLook Dictionary Search and 5 dictionaries
Copy editing: "Copy editing is done prior to the work of proofreaders, who handle documents before final publication."
Proof-reading: "Proofreading consists of reviewing any text, either hard copy on paper or electronic copy on a computer, and checking for typos and formatting errors."
Society for Editors and Proofreaders
Proofreader-Copyeditor: What is the difference between a proofreader and a copyeditor and other editors?
Category:Available proofreaders in Wikipedia
Category:Proofreaders Needed (currently inactive)
Category:Wikipedia copy editing
Wikipedia:How to copy-edit

3. —

4. I do not mind your making that point about usage. Maybe in a different discussion we can explore redundancy in more detail.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I preserve the numbers, which help keep order in our conversation.

1. Yes, more use of "[sic]" might have those good effects; but it might also mystify readers, distract them, or otherwise hinder communication. We have discussed the limitations of our conventional punctuation tool-kit, and the disproportionately complex tasks for which we must use it. Similarly with devices such as "[sic]": we must weigh one consideration against another. Remember that inline comments are available, for communicating with subsequent editors about peculiarities in the text; and these do not waylay the reader at all.

2. The meaning of proofreader is variable, as your research shows. But among most "in the trade", it means something quite different from copyeditor. Yes, there will always be overlap with such activities. A copyeditor will make amendments that are in the province of a proofreader, and vice versa. I like what our article Proof-reading says, just before the part that you have quoted: "The term proofreading is sometimes used incorrectly to refer to copy-editing. This is a separate activity, although there is some overlap between the two." (There is a sort of irony in that article's mixed use of proof-read* and proofread*, isn't there? It makes me feel better about my own slip with non-attributive case-by-case on this page, now fixed.)

3. –

4. We can freely make points to each other about usage. With other editors, we sometimes must restrain ourselves. And even nitpickers like us will find there are limits to what is worthwhile – limits we have not yet reached. Informational redundancy? Yes, another matter in which the effort to achieve balance is well spent.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[Earlier in this section, I said that "language has many irregularities and many ambiguities" and that "language is not mathematics." For irregularity, there is the mathematical field known as chaos theory, and for ambiguity, there are fuzzy logic and fuzzy mathematics. Another related topic is volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, probably relevant to strategic plans for the future of Wikipedia. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)]

Specific cases with ly

From User talk:Wavelength#MOS matters, I visited Diatonic and chromatic, where I wikified four expressions, and I posted a comment on that article's talk page. Later, I removed a hyphen at Musical scale#Non-Western scales, producing "equally tempered". However, I had doubts about that change ~~when~~ after I saw the following:

Equal temperament, introduction, paragraph 3: "equally-tempered Bohlen-Pierce scale" [sic]
Equal temperament#General properties: "equal tempered scale" [sic]
Equal temperament#Comparison to just intonation: "equal tempered counterparts" [sic]
Equal temperament#Equal temperaments of non-octave intervals: "equal tempered version" [sic]

(I added "[sic]" for the benefit of other viewers of this page.)
Is there a conventional form of this expression as used by experts in the field of classical music?

I have checked the following articles listed at User talk:Wavelength#Hyphens and made some changes. The symbol "=" denotes an expression left unaltered. Where "most" or "more" is mentioned in my quotation, it is because I consider it to be more closely associated with the next word (if that word is an adverb) than the latter is with the next one after that.

Amanita phalloides (= "sickly-sweet")
Blue Whale (--> "fully grown")
Daspletosaurus (--> "similar-sized")
Dinosaur (--> "similar-sized")
Edmontosaurus (--> "lightly built"; = "most perfectly-known" [in quotation]; --> "fully grown")
Gorgosaurus (--> "similar-sized"; --> "more heavy-built" [in conformity with heavyset])
Hawksbill turtle (--> "newly emergent"; --> "dark-colored"; --> "closely related"; = "early-life stage E. imbricata")
History of biology (= "early- to mid-nineteenth century" [noun phrase])
Ring-tailed Lemur (= "early-high wail" [noun phrase])
Sea otter (--> "similar-sized")
Bratislava (= "fully-fledged" [in quotation])
Death Valley National Park (--> "early to mid- Mesozoic" [noun phrase], edit summary linking to previous discussion, "Complications with ly-")
Hamersley, Western Australia (--> "full-fledged")
Providence, Rhode Island (--> "comparable-sized")
Waterfall Gully, South Australia (--> "early to mid- 1800's" [noun phrase])
Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa ([2 instances] --> "early to mid- 2005", edit summary linking to previous discussion, "Complications with ly-")
Delrina (--> "early to mid- 1990s", edit summary linking to previous discussion, "Complications with ly-")

I found the following cases to be especially problematic, so I have not decided what to do with them.

18. Iguanodon "At one point, Jack Horner suggested, based mostly on skull features, that hadrosaurids actually formed two more distantly-related groups, ..."

19. Blyth, Northumberland "the 18th and early-19th centuries" [noun phrase]

20. Sale, Greater Manchester "early-5th century"; "early-19th century"; "early-20th century"; "early-19th century" [all noun phrases]

21. Shuttle-Mir Program "newly-fledged Russian government" [noun phrase]

22. Johannes Kepler "the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries" [noun phrase] (Incidentally, "the early 21st century" occurs later in the same sentence.); "early-modern astronomy"

~~When I read your~~ Your comment about nitpickers~~, I remembered~~ reminded me of the articles Floccinaucinihilipilification and Proofreading (biology).
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Expressions like early·20th·century for early part of the 20th century remind me of the Latin adjectives summus, medius, and īnfimus. ([2], p. 2) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wavelength, all of that is quite tempting; but I must resist getting absorbed in it for a while, because I have too much else to do in what we are pleased to call the world. I'll try to get back to you in a few days.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another problematic case is Tlaxcala, subsection "Industry and commerce", paragraph 2, "individually- or family-owned enterprises".
-- Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed established editors group

Hi. Just to say I've nominated you for the proposed Established Editors group. Don't know if you interested? Regards. --Klein zach 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Kleinzach. I remember your work and respect it. I have been reviewing how I want to engage with Wikipedia for some months now, and I really must settle things soon! I have looked at the proposal, and it appeals to me. I'll get back to you as soon as I reasonably can.

Meanwhile, may I commend the experienced and prodigiously diligent User:Wavelength for your consideration also? (See the preceding section here.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, also for the compliment. The idea, at least to begin with, is to gather content editors with a minimum of two years experience. This might change but unfortunately at the moment User:Wavelength doesn't seem to qualify. --Klein zach 09:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

O, but Wavelength does qualify. See Jfdwolff welcoming Wavelength in 2005. Like many others, Wavelength did not bother with an actual user page till well after the talkpage had been established. More later.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've nominated Wavelength. --Klein zach 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Noetica, thank you for recommending me. Kleinzach, thank you for nominating me. The group has been aborted.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Projects for checking texts and images

Here are 16 projects for checking texts and images. (I do not know which projects are already familar to you.)

Wikipedia:Cleanup
Wikipedia:Typo Team
Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia
Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup (added 04:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check (added 04:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes
Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience (believed to be inactive)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar
~~Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design~~
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media
Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors (currently inactive)
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading (currently inactive)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style
Wikipedia:WikiProject Punctuation (believed to be inactive)
~~Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography~~
Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions (believed to be inactive)

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I am striking out two entries because they pertain to articles on topics related to graphic design and typography respectively, instead of pertaining to checking articles for errors or problems in graphic design and typography. (I suggest a clear bifurcation in naming WikiProjects, so that "Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography articles" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography checking", or some such names, can be more readily recognized.) Also, I am adding two entries. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia adminship

Category:Wikipedia adminship contains pages about being a Wikipedia administrator. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Extension:LiquidThreads

You can read about a new discussion page system at Extension:LiquidThreads. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Google Wave is another discussion page system. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Statistics

I found Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Statistics while searching for something else. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I found User:Pixelface/Unique editors of policies and guidelines while searching for it again. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change the display of {{xt}}, and to create a template for bad examples.

I've made a proposal to change the behaviour of {{xt}} so that it uses underline and a tick mark instead of the different font, and to create a new template to mark incorrect examples. They'll look like this:

Write ✔five cats and thirty-two dogs or ✔5 cats and 32 dogs, not ~~✘five cats and 32 dogs~~.

Here's a sandbox showing how it will look like. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#An idea: markup for bad examples, if you're interested. --___A. di M. 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#An idea: markup for bad examples. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Collaborative memory

You can read about collaborative memory in the four-page article "Are two heads better than one?" at http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_15-editionID_89-ArticleID_491-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/dec02thompson.pdf. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
[I corrected "part" to "page". -- Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)]

Transclusion affecting left margins of section headings

I have referred this problem to Template talk:List navbox#Transclusion affecting left margins of section headings.
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What is consensus?

(I am glad to have this opportunity to give this important question prominence at the top of this page.) At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Robert's Rules of Order (permanent link here), User:SMcCandlish has referred me to Wikipedia talk:Consensus for clarification of what consensus actually is. At this time, that (latter) discussion page has the section Wikipedia talk:Consensus#heads up: This page never defines consensus. Do you think that we should focus on defining "consensus" there, before applying it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Incidentally, Wikipedia is almost nine years old, and this hazy concept still lingers. I wonder how Citizendium and other wiki projects are faring in such matters. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied questions about consensus

For convenience, I am repeating here the four questions which you asked in your contribution at 09:16, 31 December 2009, under the subheading "Proposal to defer discussion of dashes".

1. How are we to define consensus, for the crucial work that MOS performs within the Project?

2. How is a MOS consensus to be achieved?

3. How is a MOS consensus to be recorded, for all editors to see?

4. When and how does a MOS consensus ever lapse?

I am also repeating two of the questions which I asked in my contribution at 06:44, 30 December 2009, under the heading "Robert's Rules of Order".

5. In what respects and to what extent should there be flexibility, and by what means should it be controlled?

6. In what respects and to what extent should there be stability, and by what means should it be controlled?

Even if these six questions are not discussed on this page, their repetition and juxtaposition can facilitate beneficial discussions by all interested editors. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
[I am putting these questions into a separate section. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)]

Consensus on Wikimedia projects

These pages might be helpful, or they might be only of tangential interest. References to consensus are sometimes difficult to find.

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a link to Category:Wikipedians by other Wikimedia projects. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in other Wikipedias

Wikipedia:Consensus has interlanguage links to over 40 pages in other Wikipedias, including the following.

es:Wikipedia:Consenso (proposal)
eo:Vikipedio:Interkonsento (practically only a flowchart)
fr:Wikipédia:Consensus (essay)
it:Wikipedia:Consenso
pt:Wikipedia:Consenso
simple:Wikipedia:Consensus

I did not find one in German, and I did not find one in Latin. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a link to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of consensus

These links lead to definitions of the word consensus.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Obstacles to consensus

There are some things which can hinder consensus, and can even hinder consensus about consensus.

Lack of a starting-point. Before there can be consensus, there needs to be consensus about what consensus is. This leads to infinite regress.
Vagueness of proposals. An editor might choose to be silent about a vague proposal because of its vagueness. All proposals should be clearly expressed and should avoid ambiguity. All editors should be uninhibited about asking for clarification. Sometimes, even an "expert" needs help from someone less "expert", sometimes even in that "expert's" area of "expertise". (See The Lion and the Mouse.)
Complexity of proposals. An editor might refrain from consenting to a proposal which, although it is clear, involves too many interconnected aspects and variables.
Complexity of threads. An editor might refrain from reading a discussion thread where it is sometimes difficult to understand who is responding to whom.
Avoidance of compromise. All of us Wikipedians have preferences, but we are collaborating here instead of individually developing separate encyclopedias. (Maybe some of us are doing that also, somewhere else.) It has been decided that differences in preferences can be managed if decisions are made by consensus. In theory, that saves much time and effort. However, the concept of consensus is not clear. That can lead to gaming the system. (See Wikipedia:Gaming the system).

There might be some, possibly even many, editors who have decided that they can get more of what they want by avoiding compromise than by compromising. Therefore, they might avoid consenting to a decision about a general category of cases when it might encompass a specific category of cases where their preferences would be disfavored. They might be unable or unwilling to articulate why the specific category should be an exception to the general category in regard to that decision. Then, when that specific category of cases is under discussion, they speak up in defense of their preferences. Perhaps they prefer to be entertained by the deceptive fantasy that they can gain more of what they want by avoiding compromise than by compromising. If everyone thinks like that, then much time and effort are spent unproductively.

If defining consensus is understood to involve a general category of cases, then that avoidance of compromise might be an obstacle to consensus about a definition of consensus. (Incidentally, I am not pretending to be exemplary in compromise.)

A related topic is Volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Views of this talk page

This list represents a ~~42-month~~ 48-month record of views of this talk page.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am adding data for the six most recent months, and re-aligning the columns.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Language Reference Desk contributions

Here is a record of discussions in which you contributed to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language (shortcut: WP:RD/L). In your absence from Wikipedia (and even in your hoped-for future presence), other editors can study your contributions.

Here are links to two discussions where you did not contribute but you were mentioned.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

[I am correcting two links, for 2008 April 15 (second link) and 2009 January 12 (second link).—Wavelength (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)]

I have publicized this list at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk at 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC).—Wavelength (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 73#Language Reference Desk contributions by Noetica.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Contributions to WP:MOS and WT:MOS

This is a record of the 100 leading contributors to Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Contributors

This is a record of the 100 leading contributors to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

Contributors

This is a record of your 500 most recent contributions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

MediaWiki API Result

This is a record of your 500 most recent contributions to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

MediaWiki API Result

This is a record of your 132 contributions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style in January 2010.

User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Revisions by Noetica in January 2010

—Wavelength (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Contributions to WP:MOSNUM and WT:MOSNUM

This is a record of the 100 leading contributors to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

Contributors

This is a record of the 100 leading contributors to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

Contributors

This is a record of your contributions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

MediaWiki API Result

This is a record of your contributions to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

MediaWiki API Result

—Wavelength (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Versions of WP:MOS in 2010

This is the version ("version 1") of WP:MOS at 09:06, 5 January 2010, immediately before your 132 revisions and 40 other revisions.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

This is the version ("version 2") of WP:MOS at 12:14, 16 January 2010, immediately after your 132 revisions and 40 other revisions.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

This is the version ("version 3") of WP:MOS at 03:45, 29 December 2010.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

This is the difference between version 1 and version 2.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

This is the difference between version 2 and version 3.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

This is the difference between version 1 and version 3.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

—Wavelength (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Long histories of WP:MOS and WT:MOS

This is a record of the 1000 most recent revisions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (The loading time for me was about 55 seconds.)

Revision history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style

This is a record of the 1000 most recent revisions of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. (The loading time for me was about 1 minute 20 seconds.)

Revision history of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

This is a record of the 2000 most recent revisions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (The loading time for me was about 2 minutes 30 seconds.)

Revision history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style

This is a record of the 2000 most recent revisions of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. (The loading time for me was about 3 minutes 30 seconds.)

Revision history of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

This is a record of the 5000 most recent revisions of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (The loading time for me was about 2 minutes 25 seconds.)

Revision history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style

This is a record of the 5000 most recent revisions of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. (The loading time for me was about 2 minutes 40 seconds.)

Revision history of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Apparently, the loading time is increased for a loading which immediately follows another loading.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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": [3], [4], [5], [6]. 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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^[1]. 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^[2].

^ "New Global Editors Network To Bring Journalism Into The Digital Era". Inaglobal.fr. 2011-04-18. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
^ "Global Editors Network launches under former WEF leaders". Le Monde. 2011-03-29. Retrieved 2011-09-19.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.^[1]
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)

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)

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)

Moving "List of lists of ancient kings" to "Lists of ancient kings"

At 20:43, 3 February 2012, I moved the page "List of ancient king lists" to "List of lists of ancient kings", for consistency with entries in "List of lists of lists". Afterward, I noticed that I had renamed the page incorrectly, instead of renaming it as "Lists of ancient kings". I also noticed that it had been previously named "Lists of ancient kings", but renamed after that. I wish that this page be renamed again as "Lists of ancient kings", for consistency with entries in "List of lists of lists". Please help me with this page move, if you are able to do so.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisting of Special:Contributions/[User] pages

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), section 3: "Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/[User] pages". Here is a permanent link.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Web searches—coming changes

This article discusses Web searches and imminent changes. There is an embedded YouTube video with a duration of 12:47.

How to Prepare for Google’s Search Makeover

—Wavelength (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Online resources about writing and speaking

Editors can use this link to find online resources about writing and speaking.

Writing and Speaking | FindHow.com.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wavelength. Following that lead, I have applied for access to HighBeam. Noetica^Tea? 12:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access

Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access describes a plan for Wikipedia editors to have free access to JSTOR.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Cash: disambiguation

You may be interested in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 103#Johnny Cash (song) and other trivial hatnotes: The case for two-term disambiguations (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Common name versus preferred name

At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 105#two policies in conflict (permanent link here), User:GabrielF mentioned a discrepancy between two guidelines: "that we use the most common name found in secondary sources to determine an article title, and that we prefer titles that reflects the names that people and groups use for themselves". [sic]
—Wavelength (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
From that section, the editor linked to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC) and 19:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that the same editor has mentioned the same discrepancy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY (permanent link here), with a link to the same discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Wavelength. I'll see if I can find time to focus attention on those matters. Noetica^Tea? 13:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Musical syntax

I welcome your assessment of my recent revisions to the article "Musical syntax", especially in regard to my use of en dashes.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think they are an improvement. Certainly those hyphens were aberrant. Whether en dashes are the best solution is another matter. I would probably rework those headings to avoid the need for any such device from the armoury of punctuation; but the result is good as it stands. Noetica^Tea? 10:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

St. John Ambulance

Do you agree with this reversion of my revision of the article "St. John Ambulance"?
—Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. The word "Order" is capitalised there not because it is in a heading, but "intrinsically". We see it capitalised throughout the article in such constructions as this: "The Priory of England and The Islands is the home priory of the Order, and ..."; but there are three exceptions (as I write), which should now be capitalised. Such use of upper case is not a matter of proper names, despite widespread delusions about capitalisation of nouns being an infallible mark of properness. No, it is a kind of honorific applied to institutions, as in "the Project" referring to Wikipedia (the meaning supplied by the context); or "the University", written in the context of a particular university. I support that usage; and I support "the Order" in referring to "Venerable Order of Saint John", when from the context it is perfectly clear which order is meant. Noetica^Tea? 10:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC) ♪♫ ☺

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps I should have left the upper case unchanged in several similar expressions, such as "Board of Directors" and "Board of Trustees". During the past few weeks, I have been systematically editing articles in Category:Organizations by subject and country (more specifically, Category:Environmental organizations by country, Category:Charities by country, and Category:Non-profit organizations by country). Sometimes, an article does not clarify whether an expression such as "Employee Training Program" is a generic reference (and should be "Employee training program" in a heading, and "employee training program" elsewhere), or is the actual name given to the program. I hope that editors who are more knowledgeable about those articles will refer to the Manual of Style, and decide correctly whether a particular change needs to be undone. I have now capitalized the three exceptions that I found in the article "St. John Ambulance".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For your convenience, here is a link to my 500 most recent contributions.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia and legal restrictions

This is an experience of déjà vu (già visto). Again the Italian Wikipedia is alerting its readers to proceedings in the Italian Parliament, and each page is displaying the following message.

Gentile lettore, gentile lettrice, il comma 29 del disegno di legge in materia di intercettazioni telefoniche, telematiche e ambientali (rif.) - se approvato dal Parlamento italiano - imporrebbe ad ogni sito web, a pena di pesanti sanzioni, di rettificare i propri contenuti dietro semplice richiesta di chi li ritenesse lesivi della propria immagine. Wikipedia riconosce il diritto alla tutela della reputazione di ognuno - già sancito dall'articolo 595 del Codice Penale italiano - ma con l'approvazione di questa norma sarebbe obbligata ad alterare i contenuti delle proprie voci indipendentemente dalla loro veridicità, anche a dispetto delle fonti presenti e senza possibilità di ulteriori modifiche. Un simile obbligo costituirebbe una limitazione inaccettabile all'autonomia di Wikipedia, snaturandone i principi fondamentali. Wikipedia è la più grande opera collettiva della storia del genere umano, in continua crescita da undici anni grazie al contributo quotidiano di oltre 15 milioni di volontari sparsi in tutto il mondo. Le oltre 925 000 voci dell'edizione in lingua italiana ricevono 16 milioni di visite ogni giorno, ma questa norma potrebbe oscurarle per sempre. L'Enciclopedia è patrimonio di tutti. Non permettere che scompaia.

A related discussion is archived at User:Noetica/Archive6#"Carpe diem. Seize the day." (October 2011).
—Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Headings and subheadings (unique and non-redundant)

Thread retitled from "Basel Historical Museum".

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings (version of 21:29, 13 June 2012) has a list of six points.

(point 1) Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.
(point 3) Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous.

In the article "Basel Historical Museum" (version of 17:38, 15 June 2012), each one of four different sections has two subsections titled "Location and history" and "Items in the exhibition". It seems to me that it would be impossible to satisfy both of the guidelines that I quoted. What do you recommend? (I have encountered similar situations in other articles.)
—Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Horse-drawn vehicle" (version of 03:20, 24 May 2012) has a similar situation.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For some such articles, I might like the information to be arranged in tables, in which each cell is occupied by one or more paragraphs. If a table is not used, then I tend to prefer the repetition of information in subheadings, so that incoming links to those subsections can convey more precisely what they discuss. (Some viewers of this talk page might object to my expressions "I might like" and "I tend to prefer", but of course there are practical reasons behind my occasionally liking tables and my occasionally preferring repeated information in subheadings.)
—Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Groundwater remediation" (version of 20:57, 17 June 2012) has two sub-subheadings differing only by letter case.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Reconciliation ecology" (version of 22:25, 17 June 2012) is challenging in its second section.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In the article "Red Coat Trail" (version of 23:28, 5 May 2012), I am inclined to combine the section "History" and the section "Red Coat Trail history" as one section under a heading "History".
—Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Environmental impact of roads" (version of 18:51, 23 March 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[I am revising the heading of this section from Basel Historical Museum to Headings and subheadings (unique and non-redundant), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings).
—Wavelength (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)]

The article "Sewage regulation and administration" (version of 04:27, 18 April 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "EPA Sustainability" (version of 08:44, 22 April 2011) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "List of threatened species of the Philippines" (version of 15:21, 21 June 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Motorized bicycle" (version of 19:53, 22 June 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "Ontario Minamata disease" (version of 22:29, 4 June 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The article "I PAT" (version of 04:56, 10 April 2012) has subsections with identical subheadings.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus sign

In the article List of dams and reservoirs in India, I changed a plus sign to "and", although I am unaware of any guideline for that.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Adverbs and hyphens

In paragraph 3 of Tap water#Pin holes (version of 19:05, 19 June 2012), I left the hyphen in the expression "one or more naturally-occurring minerals", although I considered changing it to "one or more naturally occurring minerals" or to "one-or-more naturally occurring minerals".
—Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do remove the hyphen, WL. Tony (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the hyphen at 00:18, 20 June 2012, changing the expression to "one or more naturally occurring minerals". (On Wikipedia, please call me "Wavelength".)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In paragraph 3 of Solar cycle#History (version of 01:57, 25 June 2012), I left the hyphen in the expression "monthly-averaged fractional surface", considering it to be comparable to the expression "Early-flowering plants risk damage from winter frosts", an example given at WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 4 (version of 00:04, 20 June 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) and 03:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please remove -ly hyphens, unless exceptions such as the "early" example you've given. Tony (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Informative edit summaries

When I edited the Manual of Style at 17:07, 26 June 2012, I used the edit summary "adding link to renamed page". Within a few minutes, I decided that a more informative summary would have been preferable. I have now devised the following edit summary, but it still needs to be 15 characters shorter to be accommodated in the allotted space.

Previous edit removed "List of commonly misused English words" with edit summary "rm redlink". This edit adds, in its place, "Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words". User:Sandstein moved it at 05:28, 7 May 2012 "without leaving a redirect".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is a version short enough to be accommodated.

This edit adds "Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words" to replace "List of commonly misused English words" removed in the previous edit. User:Sandstein moved it "without leaving a redirect".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Informal expressions

When I edited the article "Esperanto orthography" at 19:35, 27 June 2012, I changed "say" to "for example" and used the following edit summary. (I missed changing one quotation mark back to a straight quotation mark.)

"say” [informal]—> "for example"—wikt:say

—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength, thank you for your many detailed contributions at my talkpage. I look at them; but not all of them call for urgent action. When I have more time, I will review your points and see if any follow-up is desirable.

Noetica^Tea? 04:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Hello.

I noticed that you undid my edit there, stating that I should've left an informative edit summary. Not sure what I could've stated. There was not much to say. It's demonstrably correct. Please get back to me when you have a chance. Please leave a talkback notice on my talkpage when you do. Thanks. 69.155.143.207 (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Noetica and watchers, here is a link to the edit, which was performed at 04:20, 27 June 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Anonymous. I undid your edit for two reasons:

Your edit summary was uninformative: "Adding fact". WP:MOS is the central style resource for 6,904,769 articles, so proper documentation of changes is imperative. If you, especially as an IP editor, simply say that you are adding a fact, dozens or perhaps hundreds of editors will have to check what that supposed fact is, and whether it is useful on the page. This is an unfair burden to impose on them; you could very easily have given the fact itself in your edit summary – as I took the trouble to do, when I reverted your edit. What's more, in earlier days editors have masked substantial changes under misleading edit summaries, causing enormous disruption and forcing more responsible editors to struggle, much later, to find the source of provisions that somehow found their way onto the page. I therefore take a stand against inadequate edit summaries, and against edits that lack an edit summary.
While what you added is indeed a fact, its inclusion is undiscussed. It may appear to permit markup that no editor would ever be justified in using on a Wikipedia page.

I suggest that you take the proposed edit to WT:MOS (the talkpage for WP:MOS), and work out whether and how the fact might be included. Perhaps it could be worded like this:

Never use the largest possible heading, which is generated with =Title=. That size is reserved for the title of the whole page.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 01:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Noetica, I've been concerned for a while that Proper noun has a number of weaknesses, on the linguistic surface and reaching much deeper. I'm looking carefully though it to ponder some of the ontological issues, which I don't myself feel confident in talking about. It's an important article, I believe, and I see you've contributed to it a bit; are you willing to peruse the article and give your opinion on how it might be substantially improved? Tony (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a start on this article after Kwami had done some excellent work on it (see notes, above on this talkpage); but I ran into some obstruction, and put it aside for a while. You're right: time to address it again. I've done so today, as you can see. There's quite a bit more to do. I try to find time tomorrow.

Noetica^Tea? 08:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the article "Proper noun" can benefit by having a Venn diagram or more than one of them. More than 100 editors are categorized in Category:Wikigraphist (being considered for renaming to Category:Wikigraphists).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

When I enter "Proper noun" into the search box of Wikipedia, I am offered "Proper noun mark", which is redirected to "Proper name mark". The article "Proper noun" might benefit from including a mention of proper name marks, if that mention would not confuse the distinction between the expressions "proper noun" and "proper name".

–Wavelength (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Online Etymology Dictionary" has the etymology of "name" here and the etymology of "noun" here. They are mutually cognate (that last word is linked for the benefit of watchers). The article could mention the etymologies.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength, I was dimly aware of that Chinese marker. Thank you for reminding me. Along with the Egyptian cartouche, it now serves in the article to show alternative means of indicating properness. Chinese sometimes also uses guillemets to mark titles of books and the like; but this seemed less relevant, so I have not yet chosen to add it also.

The etymologies of "noun" and "name" (both from Latin "nomen") are important, and central in accounting for the perennial confusion of terms. I have yet to finish untangling things lucidly at the article. I want to add a section with the heading "History of the concept" (or similar) to explain all this, with reference to such sources as Isadore of Seville's Etymologiae – a work that I commend to you as of enormous importance in the history if ideas.

Sound, scholarly development of the article Proper noun, including eventually a change of title, is a weighty matter. WP:MOSCAPS, for one thing, needs a secure theoretical foundation if it is to be reformed from its present status as a repository of ill-founded folk ideas about capitalisation. It all takes time and thought; and it is, alas, political. The reasons for that are to explored in the domain of human cognitive psychology.

Noetica^Tea? 23:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article "Proper noun" is closely related to the articles "Article (grammar)", "Determiner (linguistics)", "Capitalization", "Letter case", "Name", "Noun", and "Noun phrase". Therefore, they can be mutually linked in various places, and information can be adapted for possible inclusion in one or more of them.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Braille#Other symbols (version of 14:09, 28 June 2012) has a symbol for capitalization: ⠠ (dot number 6, in the lower right-hand corner of the cell).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a somewhat related discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Is there a term for the distinction between these uses of nouns? (version of 17:55, 5 July 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 July 5#Is there a term for the distinction between these uses of nouns? (version of 02:47, 9 July 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikibooks (b:) has b:English Grammar/Basic Parts of Speech/Nouns#Common and Proper Nouns (version of 10:07, 25 October 2011)

and b:English in Use/Nouns#Proper nouns (version of 12:16, 5 July 2012)

and b:English in Use/Parts of Speech (version of 02:53, 19 June 2009).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiversity (v:) has v:Nouns (version of 07:56, 3 April 2011),

and Wikipedia has "Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects" (WP:SISTER).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary (wikt:) has wikt:proper noun (version of 07:35, 23 June 2012)

—with translations, including Esperanto wikt:propra nomo (no entry) and French wikt:nom propre () and German wikt:Eigenname () and Italian wikt:nome proprio () and Latin wikt:nōmen proprium (no entry) and Portuguese wikt:substantivo próprio (no entry; ) and Spanish wikt:nombre propio (no entry)—

and wikt:proper name (version of 12:33, 5 July 2011).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC) and 00:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia (w:) article "Proper noun" has interlanguage links to French Wikipedia (, ) article and German Wikipedia (, ) article and Italian Wikipedia (, ) article and Portuguese Wikipedia (, ) article and Spanish Wikipedia (, ) article .

—Wavelength (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiktionary article wikt:noun has translations, including Esperanto ; and French and ; and German and and and ; and Italian and ; and Latin (nōmen); and Portuguese ;; and Spanish and and (Venezuela).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiktionary article wikt:name has translations for the sense "word or phrase indicating a particular person, place, class or thing", including Esperanto ; and French ; and German ; and Italian ; and Latin (nōmen); and Portuguese ; and Spanish . It appears that Francophones and Italophones, in particular, would have some difficulty in distinguishing between "name" and "noun", and therefore also between "proper name" and "proper noun".

—Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links to lists of links to pages with definitions.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links to lists of links to style guidelines.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some links to search results on Google Ngram Viewer.

Google Ngram Viewer: "name,noun,proper name,proper noun"
Google Ngram Viewer: "noun,proper name,proper noun"
Google Ngram Viewer: "proper name,proper noun"
Google Ngram Viewer: "proper noun"

—Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast

You may wish to see Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Requested Move: Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast (version of 00:20, 30 June 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Justus Scaliger

I have just discovered the article "Joseph Justus Scaliger" via the article "-ana", and it reminded me of the username "JCScaliger", about whose etymology I can only speculate. The name "Scaliger" is associated with the northern (wikt:septentrionalis) part of Italy.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC) and 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

By means of a Google search for j c scaliger, I found "Julius Caesar Scaliger" and J.C.Scaliger and "No Way to Pick a Fight: A Note on J. C. Scaliger's First: Oratio contra Erasmum" at JSTOR: Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Summer 2008), pp. 255-265.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wavelength: I had already researched the etymology of "JCScaliger", along its with thematic and structural features, some of which it shares with the name "PMAnderson". I had also pondered the northernness attaching to "Septentrionalis". When User:JCScaliger was still operating as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson, I did not say anything about it for prudential reasons. Note the seven-oxen etymology of Latin septentrionalis. You have taken things in a different direction. Interesting!

Noetica^Tea? 22:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Adverbs and hyphens in Wiktionary

During my recent research of Wiktionary (wikt:) for an expansion of "User:Wavelength/About English/Adverbs and hyphens", I discovered these entries.

wikt:fully-fledged (version of 19:20, 26 December 2011)
wikt:fully-loaded (version of 13:43, 27 March 2012)
wikt:newly-formed (version of 00:01, 6 June 2010)

I disagree with the hyphenation in those entries, and this is not the first time that I have disagreed with something that I have found in Wiktionary.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor web design

This web page discusses poor web design by multinational companies.

Why Country Sites Are So Bad (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers in relation to Wikipedia:Article titles.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution was started at 05:15, 11 November 2011.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Titles of new articles

You can watch for problematic titles of new articles, by adding certain pages to your watchlist. At All pages with titles beginning with User:AlexNewArtBot, you can select any link ending in "SearchResult" to see the latest report for that topic.
My watchlist includes a few of those pages, including "User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult". Thus, I saw "Dietary Management of Parkinson's Disease" and moved it to "Dietary management of Parkinson's disease".
Moving a page is easier when it is new and an orphan or almost an orphan. (I think of such a move as something somewhat analogous to neonatal surgery.) Older articles tend to have links to them from other articles, so renaming the first one tends to involve updating the links from the other articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics in article titles

Diacritics in article titles are discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 113#The use of accent marks in article title (version of 16:02, 7 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Bouba/kiki effect" or "Bouba-kiki effect"

Should "Bouba/kiki effect" be moved to "Bouba-kiki effect" or to something else (if so, to what?), or should it remain as it is? I am thinking of the guideline at WP:SLASH: "Generally avoid joining two words by a slash, also known as a forward slash or solidus ( / )." Also, I am thinking of the use of the virgule in links to subpages. Also, I am thinking of the possible existence of a precedence from established usage outside Wikipedia.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this, Wavelength. I will look into the matter later today.

Noetica^Tea? 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Make that "within a week, if we're lucky". Now, I think this is a difficult and indeterminate case. I think I would leave it with a slash. Sometimes that is the least unsatisfactory of the available alternatives. Punctuation is not equipped with every tool for every job, and we do the best we can in an all~too~real world.

Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a link to "Bouba/kiki effect" to "List of effects" at 01:12, 28 August 2012.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Kerala

I'm here to request your kind help for improving the phrasing of the article Kerala. I'm helpless to do it myself, since I have some limitation with English language. Shall you please spare some time for it? AshLey ^Msg 06:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ashley. A bit busy right now, but I'll assess the situation later today (Australia Eastern Standard Time) to see if I can do anything useful there.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Noetica, You have already done an awesome work in lead, thank you very much. Also, I got unexpected help from your friend, Wavelength and I owe you for that too. Your changes were good lessons for me and hopefully, I should try to reach near your expertise one day. Greatfully AshLey ^Msg 07:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ashley. When I saw that Wavelength had got involved, among others, I knew that the article would progress in leaps and bounds. So I withdrew after my initial flurry there. Let me know if more is needed sometime. Perhaps I should step in and review the whole thing for coherence when things have quietened down there.

Best wishes. Stay for a cup of tea next time?

Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation and spaces

In my Internet research to decide whether to put the definite article "The" before "Center for Development Studies" in paragraph 5 of 6 in Kerala#Education (version of 01:32, 12 August 2012), I found the official website at Centre for Development Studies(CDS),Trivandrum,Kerala,India. In the title bar, there is no space before the opening parenthesis, and a space is missing after each of the three commas. Paragraph 2 of the same section of the Wikipedia article states that "Kerala became the first state in India to be recognized as a totally literate state", so we Wikipedians face a challenge when an official website of an educational institution in Kerala displays its usage of punctuation so prominently. (Millions of people live in other parts of India.)
—Wavelength (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement sounds like spin, anyway. Recognised by whom? My inclination, when there's enough wrong in the text of a potential quotation, is to paraphrase most or all of it. Tony (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

English-language style guides in India

Out of curiosity about what is recommended for English-language writers in India, I performed various searches on the World Wide Web. They included different combinations of these terms: style, guide, manual, english, india, site:.in, site:ac.in, site:gov.in, report. Some results pertained to style of attire. Some results pertained to aspects of writing, but not the ones discussed in WP:MOS. Some results referred to other style guides, including CMOS (sometimes as CMS) and MLA.

However, I found the following result, which is a style guide of the type that I was seeking.

Also, I found the following result, which is interesting because of the size of the population of China.

The English Style Guide: A Practical Writers Guide for Chinese People Who Use English as a Second Language - Crossword.in

—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for those! I looked up the Indian one. Pretty poor and derivative, with systematic punctuation errors like this:

e.g.,.

As for the Chinese one, that interests me especially because of my research interest in contemporary Chinese learners' understanding of punctuation in English (which is woeful, of course). I found the book at Googlebooks. It's dreadful. Little more than a compendium of superannuated platitudes, inaccurately recalled and reproduced.

Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have not seen English As She Is Spoke it does have a small cult following, particularly among those who have abruptly given up the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Neotarf (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, in your edit summary of 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC), you twice referred to loving to hate. Do you have in mind a hatred of what is bad, a hatred that reinforces a love of what is good? (Amos 5:15) Alternatively, do you have in mind a schadenfreude (wikt:schadenfreude), a joy based on the misfortunes of others? (Proverbs 17:5)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength, perhaps this is an Americanism, but every successful soap opera must have a villain that you "love to hate". People can become "hooked" on these TV characters, especially the negative ones, and keep coming back to watch the program day after day, just to see what despicable thing the character will do next. Neotarf (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, the cinema of the United States (informally "Hollywood") and the cinema of India (informally "Bollywood") have a monetary motive in causing viewers to become addicted to dramas and characters, but some people have a spiritual motive in not becoming addicted. (Philippians 4:8; 1 Corinthians 10:11)

For us who work to develop a high-quality manual of style, there is no satisfaction in seeing the negative features of low-quality manuals of style, because of their bad influence on their readers. However, being aware of their existence can be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

One small detail, the American TV industry, which used to be mainly in New York, is separate from the Hollywood movie industry.

The problem of what to do about a person who is malicious, scheming, abusive, controlling, or manipulative is not exclusively a religious question; even Wikipedia concerns itself with civility.

I forgot to mention, the "love to hate" comment was also an oblique reference to the notorious Strunk and White style guide, that many professional editors regard with an unreasonable loathing. Such things are meant for beginners, and I don't see any way to learn how to write without some arbitrary rules. The problem comes in with a style guide like MoS, which demands greater sophistication and flexibility, and some vision about what style means in the context of this unique electronic media.

Neotarf (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You will have to excuse me for staying out of this conversation. My attention is entirely focused on developments at ArbCom, and probably will continue to be for a while. ☺
Noetica^Tea? 20:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am aware, and the remark was not really for you anyhow. I am not unmindful of what is going on at ArbCom and I do think it matters about RM, but we have just had a major holiday break in this part of the world, there will be no flights in or out for The Duration, and there is also the matter of whether we will be able to obtain basic services, like water. Plus, it is the middle of the night here, and I do want to do justice to the subject matter that I have contributed to for the last several months. I will be along there shortly. You may or may not like what I say. Neotarf (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2012‎ (UTC)

O, please note: I'm not suggesting that you go there or that you not go there; and of course everyone should say what they want, not what anyone else might want. Enjoy the holiday break! ☺ Noetica^Tea? 21:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to enjoy. Everyone who could get out has gotten out already, I was unlucky. In the meantime, I write the easy comments, trying to gather my thoughts about the other and think of what I want to say that can be fair to everyone. I also have an impression of the people at "Men's rights", that they are well intentioned, but perhaps because of their horribly negative dealings, have gotten NPOV but do not realize it. When I looked at everybody's contributions, I also saw a lot of interest in Lesbian issues, this strikes me the same as having members from the Jewish project edit articles about Islam, but I don't remember now where I saw that and I certainly can't make those characterizations about everyone in the project. Still, something needs to be said. The confused young men of the English-speaking world are going to see that article, and no other, and believe every male who talks of "rights" must be a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather, and if they want to be a Real Man, they must do the same. We do the young people no service to provide them with "information" like this. Neotarf (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Giraffedata/comprised of

Because of my recent revisions to the article "Kerala", that article is now on my watchlist, and, because of this revision by User:Giraffedata, I found User:Giraffedata/comprised of, which may interest you and your page watchers. A record of that editor's contributions is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Giraffedata. The words "compose", "comprise", "consist", and "constitute" are discussed at compose / consist / comprise /constitute... - EnglishClub.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) and 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disrupted consensus

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Consensus#terminology where "consensus" wrongfully excludes some editors (version of 00:27, 14 August 2012) and Wikipedia talk:Consensus#proposing to clarify that wrongfully disrupting consensus is policy violation (version of 00:27, 14 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom request: Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Noetica^Tea? 03:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

[Hyperpedantically notifying myself; one can't be too careful these days – especially at ArbCom ☺.]

I respect the fact that your Wikipedia attention is at this time concentrated on arbitration, and I wish you success in your endeavors there. If I post comments here during that process, I do not intend to dilute your attention there, but sometimes posting here allows me to remove items from my list of things to do. After the proceedings have been concluded, you can, with less encumbrance, read my comments and possibly reply.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Misspellings in piped links

(not urgent)

Occasionally, I find a piped link where the title of the target page is spelled correctly, but where the displayed text is a misspelled version of the title of the target page. In my revision to "Norm Coleman" at 20:56, 21 August 2012, I changed "Artic National Wildlife Refuge" to "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" by removing the displayed title and the pipe character, thereby causing the title of the target page to be displayed. Apparently, someone knew the correct spelling, but (for some reason) wanted to display the incorrect spelling.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In my revision to "Jockstrap" at 23:30, 28 August 2012, I changed "erectile disfunction" to "erectile dysfunction" by removing the displayed title and the pipe character and by decapitalizing the word "erectile". Possibly, an automated process has been revising redirected links by introducing piped links, without understanding correct and incorrect spelling.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Surviving Wikipedia

(not urgent)

You might be interested in User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia (version of 08:48, 1 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC) and 01:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Appraising hidden agendas

You may be interested in the following 1999 news article from the Sunday Herald. [7] Since it is behind a paywall, allow me to quote from it briefly.

FORGET the old gag that Scotland's a place where men are men and the sheep are nervous. If you are Neil Lyndon, hero of the men's movement and self-styled victim of the massed ranks of feminist harpies, it's a country where women are women and the men are scared. Lyndon shot to infamy in 1992 with his anti-feminist tract No More Sex War. Within months of publication, he had vanished from sight, battle-scarred and broken from the flak and fireworks that greeted his book.

His career ruined by accusations of misogyny, his answer-machine plagued with messages from women vowing to castrate him, and his marriage in tatters, Lyndon decided to shut up and disappear. Seven years later, he has resurfaced in Scotland. Today, Lyndon lives in obscurity in Perth, where he is building his own house and re-building his life after his one-man war on women ended in financial ruin and shame. Fittingly for a man who railed against the inequalities of fathers in society, he is also raising his teenage son after a bitter divorce from his second wife.

The paper is apparently published in Scotland, and the Perth in question seems to be in the Scottish outback.

Lyndon was savaged in the press when his book was published. He was then one of the leading feature writers in the UK writing for most of the London broadsheets but, after a sound "monstering" in every newspaper in Britain for being a woman-hating boor, his work dried up completely.

Apparently political conservatism has not gained the traction in England that it has in the U.S.

Regarding recent wiki-wars, there is this site, http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/ and I understand it is traditional not to link to such sites here, so I encase it in "nowiki" markup. I had no idea such things existed. Note the telling "Overview of Mod Policy"

No linking to SRS or affiliated subs. Advocating for violence/illegal acts may be removed (this is not the same as advocating for changes to the laws governing these acts)

A further search for "SRS" yields something a little more informational in nature. [8] This site (Men's Rights, not SRS) has recently (2012) been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I seem to remember took on pro bono cases for the purposes of advancing civil rights/voter's registration in America's troubled South back in the 60's. [9] report:[10]

Finally allow me to report this conversation from dinner last night: Kiwi: "Auckland isn't even known for linguistics, if you want a linguistics university you go to Waikato." Me: "And where do you go for men's rights?" Kiwi: "Men don't have rights. Get with the program. [sputtering, unintelligible...] Look at what happens when they get rights. Like [what goes on in Saudi]."

So I would suggest that the use of the phrase "men's rights" is undergoing or has undergone some sort of, I don't know, paradigm shift maybe. In the past it meant something like a Hammurabi-like delineation of the difference between free men and slaves, with property rights of women and orphans thrown in for good measure. Then it went to a "rights of man" kind of grandiose sweeping vision of standing up to oppressors. Women were not included in this assessment as they were generally not part of public discourse. Then perhaps the feminism of the 60s, where mentioning such legal situations as the unequal application of social security laws to men with regard to their wives' salaries was not unheard of in feminist tracts of the era. Now it is a wonder of the social media, perhaps a dog-whistle phrase like "states rights", and the occasion for sputters if mentioned over a glass of tea.

A pity this information is only available off-wiki. In connection with this, I note some recent conversations that have come across my watchlist about the future wiki use of social media, like quoting information from Twitter.

According to my talk page, I am extremely busy at the moment, so I had best vanish again. Cheers.

Neotarf (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

All fascinating, Neotarf; as are the labyrinthine twists of WT:TITLE these days.

I will not be doing much directly with that perilous page Men's rights, or whatever political correctness would have us call it. As I said long ago when KillerChihuahua came to my page to tell me I was wrong during the 2011 RM, and to deliver her opinion on a core topic of the RM:

"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."

That's from my Archive 6. My view has not changed; nor have my feelings of dread.

I have been reading David Benatar's The Second Sexism: Discrimination against Men and Boys (2012). What a tour de force! Great to see a professor of philosophy presenting a detached analysis of all the issues. Needless to say, he predicts the stupid formulaic reactions that his thesis will elicit in certain sectors that are immune to careful thought. Tsk! Well, that's the way of the world; and alas, the way of some parts of Wikipedia.

This is a kitten-free zone, of course. But we manage to maintain a perfectly comfortable environment. Stay for karkadé next time?

Noetica^Tea? 08:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Parker#Career (version of 18:03, 22 August 2012.) mentions Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care (New York: Random House, 2008).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a New York Times review of this book here. Neotarf (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See 080629A Save the Males. "CD copies are available at 1-800-747-7444. Ask for program number 08-06-29-A."

—Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Karkady....ahhhh....I haven't had that since the first time I was in Egypt, although I've never made it as far as the farflung (and non-rhotic?) Barfoo (or was it Fubar).
Thanks for the reminder about Men's rights; yes, I saw your earlier reservations, but I had forgotten them. As a new editor with less than a thousand edits, I'm not sure what to think when I get templated [11] by someone with a confrontational name, when an article has its own hand-picked, resident "uninvolved" admin, when someone who claims to be some sort of employee of Wikimedia Foundation accuses me of "bad faith"[12] after I post his exact words verbatim, along with a diff, or when someone claims I accused them of having "a point of view problem" when my exact words were "I don't see you as trying to push a particular POV." [13] Troubling too, when there are so many people in one place who do not seem to buy into the values of WP. And twice as troubling for a new editor who is still trying to figure out where all the landmines are buried.
Of course you can always write your own men's article. But I have to take issue with your "simple factual material to contribute". Nothing is simple with this topic. The mere act of choosing WHICH material to contribute can be political, in that it helps determine the focus of the article and any resulting public discourse on the subject. One thing I noticed about the previous men's rights article before it was scrubbed, was that it was a collection of random and unfocused factoids, that merely cataloged differences in policy between men and women. Interpretation here is everything. For instance, take the differences between screening for prostate cancer compared to breast cancer. What is the cost per test (last time I checked, the blood test for prostate cancer was expensive and not particularly reliable) and how many illnesses would be prevented (breast cancer is much more common, so the cost effectiveness would be higher.) How can you tell if a particular policy decision is being made by cost, and not by gender? More to the point, how do you allocate finite public resources? Or take military service. How do you interpret gender considerations of military service in terms of "veteran's preference", the practice in the U.S. of giving first pick of lucrative civil service jobs based on years of military service. The devil, as usual, is in the details, and especially in their analysis.
I'm afraid the book you recommend is not available here, as I'm in something of a backwater. We can get the usual man/woman/mars/venus lunacy, as well as either How to Make Someone Fall in Love With You in 90 Minutes or Less or How to Kill Your Husband which, although Amazon classifies this latter as "fiction", here it is shelved with "self-help". I'm afraid the focus of book publishing is too often on entertainment value, and not on scholarly thought.
My apologies for inviting kittens to your talkpage. Of course it was meant to be facetious, I doubt anyone took it seriously. If you do experience any manifestations, feel free to call on me to take responsibility for their removal.
Regards, Neotarf (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf: Fear not!

I want little to do with that article. Of course it's all very complex, and of course it's riddled with politics. I would never have contributed to it at all, if I had not noticed that people were calling for hard, documented facts there. I optimistically assumed that the ones I was able to supply would be welcome. Alas not by everyone, as it turned out. Far from selecting in a necessarily slanted way, I simply contributed from a couple of research interests I have, but not with any "original research" of mine. It is beyond my control if the facts I documented are not to some people's liking; or if they remove the material under cover of misleading edit summaries. My main concern is not to behave like that myself. That's all. And I never do, as my record shows.

We'll see what happens. Those unruly RFCs at WT:TITLE are a worry. Food for the cognitive psychologist's thought! When things are quieter I intend to revisit the option of invoking Wikipedia:Move review – in the interest of seeing good procedure followed, rather than in the expectation of a healthy outcome for an article that was always destined for futility and turmoil.

Let's move on for now, and live what we can of life away from such a madding crowd's ignoble strife!

☺

Noetica^Tea? 07:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

My reduced Wikipedia presence

I have some pressing and unexpected things to attend to in real life, and will not be able to respond on some Wikipedia matters for a few days. I'll still check in; but in particular, I may not have access to all of my usual style resources and the like. I'll post a note when I am fully back.

Noetica^Tea? 02:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

These three things can help you in that situation.

a securely stored catalog of all the items
insurance for all the items against loss and damage
a contingency plan for replacing each item, if it needs to be replaced

Maybe you already have all those things.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength, thank you for your solicitousness. But be assured: I have no fear for my library of style resources; it's just that I can't have access to all of them for a little while. I mentioned that because there are issues (at WT:TITLE and WT:MOS, for example) that those resources could normally help to settle.

Noetica^Tea? 07:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyphenation of "full-time" and "part-time"

Hyphenation of "full-time" and "part-time" is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#"full-time" and "part-time" false positives (version of 03:40, 31 August 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of "should" and its alternatives

I have seen some of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Should (version of 12:24, 19 September 2012), and I am reminded of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (version of 08:11, 14 September 2012) and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (version of 12:02, 15 September 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language—International Edition (1975), in its "Usage" note for "should", includes the following statement.

Should, in indicating obligation or necessity, is somewhat weaker than ought and appreciably weaker than must and have to.

As I understand these four expressions, they all can denote obligation, as when an army officer commands a soldier.

You should intercept this tea.
You ought to intercept this tea.
You must intercept this tea.
You have to intercept this tea.

Also, they all can denote recommendation, as when a person speaks to a friend.

You should try this tea.
You ought to try this tea.
You must try this tea.
You have to try this tea.

Intermediately, they can denote quasi-obligation or quasi-recommendation, as when a physician issues a "command" or a "recommendation" to a patient.

You should try this tea.
You ought to try this tea.
You must try this tea.
You have to try this tea.

Also, they all can denote probability, as when a person expresses a conclusion about what seems to be likely (and not necessarily desired).

This tea is very good, so it should be very expensive.
This tea is very good, so it ought to be very expensive.
This tea is very good, so it must be very expensive.
This tea is very good, so it has to be very expensive.

In my understanding, the four expressions differ in their intensity, but their meaning varies according to their context.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that analysis, Wavelength. I have done a great deal of similar research, but I am reluctant to spend time presenting the results here. No time! If it comes to a properly presented and regimented RFC in the appropriate forum, I will find time. Just brief observations, then.

Dictionaries are limited resources for the precise and overlapping meanings of expressions with "should" and "must". These are complex matters, even if (as I contend) the presence of unequivocal obligatory force is plain in contexts such as Wikipedia statements of policy. Among other variables that are sometimes present, though not cancelling or even diminishing that obligatory force:

differing expectations of compliance;
differing expectations for the consequences of failure to comply;
differing quasi-legal gravity of failure to comply (and possible sanctions against anyone failing to comply); and
differing admixture of non-deontic modality, along with the obligatory (deontic) force. An example: "A hidden comment must not be put on the same line as the heading of a section but following the final '==' markup." That imposes an obligation, but it does more. That "more" justifies the "must": if you do not comply, you will disable features of the markup. For one thing, the heading will not appear in an edit summary when the section is edited. So there is a kind of external necessity involved, distinct from but affecting the deontic necessity.

Such matters are covered in descriptive grammars, in linguistic texts concerned with modal auxiliaries (etc.), in philosophical treatments of modality and ethics, and in texts concerned with legal drafting.

All in good time!

Noetica^Tea? 01:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Should has not yet been archived. Here is a link to the latest version, that of 20:26, 3 October 2012.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Major and minor keys

JackofOz asked about musical terminology at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Minor or major? (version of 22:34, 27 September 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC) and 23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Slow movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:3RR

I'm sure you've heard of it. You've past that bright line. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

At WT:MOS? I think not. Count again, and note the well-explained nature of those edits. Their content was not the same.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 03:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Uno, ~~dos~~. tres, quatro, y cinco. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. I like that! But I see that your reading skills are still not up to the task (☺?). One of those edits is by Neotarf, not me. And the intent of the last two is different from the intent of the first two. See Churn and change's subsequent confirmation, in the history: that was Darkfrog's simple "'good-faith" mistake, and I acted to correct that mistake. I did that in good faith – not to press against the limits of any policy, including WP:3RR.
♥
::Noetica^Tea? 04:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Too many names starting with N. :) That's still 4 though, which is greater than 3. My reading skills may indeed may not be up to the task, so perhaps you can show me where the 3 revert rule talks about intent. For you convenience, I've copied it here:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions.

Kindest regards, -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah Nathan, it appears that if the strictest interpretation were applied I may be considered in breach of that provision. Still, I draw your attention to the content of the last two edits that you list. There I was acting in good faith, documenting my reasons very clearly, to correct what I genuinely thought was a mistake by Darkfrog. As it turns out, the editor whose editing he reverted confirms that it was a mistake. Given the chaotic course of events on that page lately, a strong argument can be made for invoking WP:IAR (as the header for the policy page WP:3RR suggests). I now do invoke IAR (something I very rarely do), given the extraordinary nature of the case.

I will now make statements elsewhere on this matter.

Thank you!

Noetica^Tea? 07:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. See this section at WP:ANI.
Noetica^Tea? 07:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that I made a mistake about was who put the misleading wording in place. It wasn't Churn. My edit summaries state, "RegentsPark said 'I've restored Nathan Johnson's close,' so the text should reflect Nathan's words, not Kwami's.'" This was never about Churn. It was about having the summary reflect the admin's decision. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Johnson, please see wikt:passed and wikt:past and wikt:cuatro and wikt:quatro.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of WP:MOS/R

User:Apteva has questioned the purpose of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Register#Purpose (version of 19:13, 15 October 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply

As I clarified on my talk page for Tony, the message I left above is only informal and it should not be taken as the official warning. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Guerillero.

I am now back at my usual location, and in a position to review in their entirety the discussions at ANI, at your talkpage, and at SlimVirgin's talkpage. I have also noted that you and Slim (party to disputation with me) have communicated to alert each other to developments at that ANI discussion; but neither of you has seen fit to extend that consideration to me. This, despite my having indicated that I was away from my usual place and unable to monitor all developments.

I note that the warning you issued, in the post with which you started this thread, reads for all the world as if were an official warning under the DS provisions. Thank you for now saying it is not. My fear is that it may still be taken that way – either as a trigger for exposing me to immediate DS sanctions, or as a general slur on my reputation on Wikipedia. The same may be said about the remainder of your post, which we can all see was prompted by remarks in a conversation to which I was not invited, in a thread dealing with other matters (and as I said, I was not able to continue watching that thread; and had no reason to suspect that I would need to).

I am not, of course, accusing you of bad faith. But I prefer not to have my reputation tarnished by inadvertent or hasty remarks. I would prefer not to take this further in any way, though it seems to me that developments at MOS almost cry out for an ArbCom case. My request, to keep things amicable and simple: strike out or remove your initial post here, with an explanatory note. Alternatively, I authorise you to delete that part of my talkpage from the record completely, using the facility that admins have to do such a thing.

I have been waiting silently for your reply, and posted nothing anywhere for several days. I will continue my absence from Wikipedia until this little misunderstanding has been resolved. If it is not resolved soon (or swept up in some action before ArbCom), I will retire from Wikipedia.

Thank you for understanding! ☺

Noetica^Tea? 03:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Guerillero, Wikipedia has benefited immensely from contributions by Noetica, and his absence would be a huge loss to its editors and its readers. I believe that his professional expertise in matters of style is extremely rare, and probably impossible to replace. If you grant his request, it would be a small step for you, a big help for Noetica, and a giant support for Wikipedia. We all make mistakes at times; in this episode, each of you was hampered by circumstantial constraints. Please evaluate carefully what is in your hands. I entreat you to grant his request.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I will post a statement in the morning explaining what I did and didn't do. (It is a Saturday night and I am a college student.)--Guerillero | My Talk 01:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing was unfortunate from the beginning; keeping it undeleted only serves to hurt good people without serving either truth or justice. But it did happen and I don't see how it could be made to go down the memory hole at this point. Both will have to live with whatever they did or didn't do. I would suggest that Noetica keep the diff for the stricken version close at hand in case of, er, misunderstandings.

It has been said that Wikipedia is not compulsory but I just looked at my edits for the last few weeks and it seems WP:MOS has monopolized all my wiki-time. There has been RfC, a couple of ANIs, two editors dragged off to AE, multiple disruptions over dashes on the talk page, and now this Noetica thing. It seems that if you are in for a dime, you are in for a dollar. I don't know if there is a statute of limitations for bringing issues to ArbCom, but I hope anyone who is thinking of bringing an action will take Tony's advice that a cooling off period is in order, if nothing else than to allow RL to catch up.

--Neotarf (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am grateful for all these recent developments. My intention now? To wait for a day or so: partly because I have a pile of real-life work to attend to, and partly to see if there will be any further action to clean up the record here. That would be a fitting way to finalise matters. If anyone thinks all this is trivial or self-indulgent, reading through the recent posts might persuade them otherwise. So would checking the associated discussions and sections at other pages.

When things are fully settled, I intend to tidy my talkpage: I will hat sections and archive everything up to the present, send messages to acknowledge appropriateness in how things have been remedied, and move on. We all have to focus on productivity now. And collegial, orderly development of crucial pages like WP:MOS.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 01:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems my optimism was premature. I find it troubling that in many cases, those with specialized academic knowledge or expertise who are willing to volunteer their time here are accorded less consideration and AGF than whose who damage the Project, either from cluelessness or intentional vandalism. I continue to hope for a collegial outcome, and I certainly would not object to any of my remarks on this subject here and elsewhere being admin-deleted, if it would facilitate removal of Noetica's resignation as well. But I too will stop editing for the time being. --Neotarf (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, after you will have archived everything on this page, I will probably post again the 22nd section, "#Category:Slow movement", because I continue to be interested in what you may have to say in reply.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia blackout again

There is a possibility of Italian Wikipedia () implementing another blackout.

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 118#Italian wikipedia proposed blackout again (26 and 27 October 2012)
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Italian wikipedia entirely blocked (4 and 5 October 2011)
- User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Changes to it:WP statement (5 and 6 October 2011)
- User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Now what? (5 and 6 October 2011)
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Italy redux (6 October 2011)
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Italian WP unblocked after 16 million forced pageviews (6 and 7 October 2011)
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#"Carpe diem. Seize the day." (7 October 2011)
User:Noetica/Archive6#"Carpe diem. Seize the day." (7 and 8 October 2011)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC) and 04:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a permanent link to the page with the English version of the 2012 public notice.

Wikipedia:Comunicato 24 ottobre 2012/en - Wikipedia (version of 19:15, 26 October 2012)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Australian English: "nee" and "née"

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

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

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

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

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

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

New copy-editors; WP:COPYEDIT

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

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

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

Extra punctuation marks

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

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

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

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

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

Sentence first (blog)

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

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

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

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

Criticism of edits and of comments

The discussion to which the previous section (#Arbcom enforcement, version of 14:32, 27 January 2013) links, and the revisions to which that discussion links, have prompted me to initiate this discussion in a separate section.

The first paragraph of Wikipedia:No personal attacks (version of 19:04, 18 January 2013) includes the statements "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Although I did find in that policy page a mention of comments on edits, I did not find there any mention of comments on comments.

I understand that, when you are criticizing the comments of another editor, that does not constitute a criticism of the editor who made those comments. However, it is apparent to me that sometimes an editor whose comments have been criticized takes that criticism personally, that is to say, it seems to me that that editor reasons that a criticism of the comments necessarily amounts to a criticism of the editor.

I am aware that it is possible for a (generally) good person to do bad things, and for a (generally) intelligent person to do unintelligent things. However, that awareness might not come easily to everyone. Some people may have had (or may still have) authoritarians (parents and teachers and bosses) who have had plenty of time to point out their faults, but seldom enough time to commend them for their good qualities and good deeds. Maybe the authoritarians had time constraints, or maybe they previously had similar experiences. Also, the entertainment industry promotes many negative impulses. Tough love has its place, but it is received better when there is also free expression of appreciation (if there is a real basis for that appreciation). Tough love is an art that can be improved with practice.

With the aforementioned points in mind, I suggest that there be clarification in WP:NPA as to where the boundary (if it exists) lies between "criticism of a comment" and "criticism of an editor".
—Wavelength (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Wavelength. In accord with my usual policy when I am unfairly accused for political reasons, I will leave Wikipedia if Apteva's action results in any sanction or any formal warning against me. Noetica^Tea? 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Rise and fall of Wikipedia

This report was mentioned at User talk:Jimbo Wales.

The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline

—Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Mandatory edit summaries

There is a discussion about mandatory edit summaries at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#why are edit summaries not mandatory? (version of 03:38, 30 January 2013). You can use this link to find archived WT:MOS discussions about edit summaries.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts on article titles

Noetica, I'm genuinely curious. When do you feel it is appropriate for an article title to not contain a qualifier or disambiguator in parentheses, if ever? If you've stated your philosophy elsewhere, feel free to just link me there. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect Noetica is okay with Ford Motor Company. I had to click on SPECIAL:RANDOM five times in a row before I came to Fair Haven, New Jersey, one I suspect he's okay with too. But before that I got Joseph V. Grieco, Selena Etc., Crottet, Whitburn Junior F.C., and Ratsada E, all of which I believe he would support "improving" with more descriptive information in the title. Noetica, please correct me if I'm wrong about any of these.

Over all, I'm guessing if Noetica had his way, we'd have to "improve" well over 90% of our titles, and we would have no clear guidance on what exactly those new titles should be. This is why, as far as I can tell, the approach he advocates would ultimately lead to a massive destabilization of WP title space. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

B2C - rather than guess, why not let Noetica answer the question posed to him? Dohn joe (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, my guess does not prevent or inhibit Noetica from answering just the same, so the implication that sharing my guess here somehow does not "let Noetica answer" is misleading, I think. Secondly, I thought my guess might help him answer with more clarity, either by confirming that my guess is correct, or explain where and why it's wrong. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, it's nosy. Dohn joe (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nosy? Aren't we all one big happy open family? That's how I look at it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

An indication of a position that is likely to be weak is the avoidance, by proponents of the position, of answering pointed questions about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The absence of an answer can be an indication of a lack of time, regardless of the strength of a position that has been pointedly questioned. Noetica has mentioned time constraints at 12:28, 11 January 2013, 00:18, 12 January 2013, and 07:26, 23 January 2013. A delay of 2 days 1 hour 54 minutes (from 18:10, 30 January 2013, to 20:04, 1 February 2013) is understandable.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Even with limited available time, Noetica has contributed many well-prepared comments, and they can be found in the record of his contributions. However, too often his sacrifice is in vain, as in the case of his answer to a request by User:Apteva: "Tell me if there is an example of an airport, bridge, war, comet, or any other proper noun spelled with an endash anywhere in the entire book."

—Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BDD:

Wavelength is right. I have had more pressing matters to deal with, and it is distasteful to grapple yet again with another attempt by B2C to squash preemptively everyone else's contribution in the territory he has staked out. Now, let no prowling admin get me wrong, or swoop to cut me down as I speak freely. ArbCom itself issued a warning to him about not leaving room for others' views, in the same case in which his colleague PMAnderson was blocked for a year and indefinitely banned. For sockpuppetry. (You'd be surprised! They walk among us, closer than you think ... .)

Really, I don't want to personalise anything: but B2C assumes such a stranglehold on certain policy and guideline provisions that it is difficult to separate him from them. See current action at WT:DAB, regarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC yet again.

Don't concern yourself, BDD, with what my opinions might be. Take the matter to B2C's talkpage. I was invited there, in a section you can find above. But to me life seems too large and bright for me to spend it arguing with Wikipedia editors who set themselves beyond persuasion. And I am quitting Wikipedia anyway.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 08:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

References

^ Suber, Peter (2003). "Nomic: A Game of Self-Amendment". Earlham College. Retrieved 2008-08-31.

Departures

[1] "New Global Editors Network To Bring Journalism Into The Digital Era". Inaglobal.fr. 2011-04-18. Retrieved 2011-09-19.

[2] "Global Editors Network launches under former WEF leaders". Le Monde. 2011-03-29. Retrieved 2011-09-19.

[3] Suber, Peter (2003). "Nomic: A Game of Self-Amendment". Earlham College. Retrieved 2008-08-31.

[1]

[2]

[1]

v t e Lists in Wikipedia
Style	Lists Lists of works Stand-alone lists Set index articles Naming conventions (lists) Accessibility/Lists Pro and con lists List dos and don'ts (information page)
Content	Wikipedia:Contents/Lists Featured list criteria WikiProject Lists
Rationale	Categories, lists, and navigation templates Categories vs. lists Lists in Wikipedia Lists within articles Listcruft Write the article first
Existing lists	Featured lists List of lists Lists of lists List of lists of lists
Templates	Template index/Lists Category:List templates
Assistance	Help:List