Jump to content

User talk:Blythwood/2017/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cooperation on propionyl vs propanoyl thing?

[edit]

I started to revert some of your links only to realize that you have created a collection of articles have been created on some acid chlorides. Thank you for doing that. It is helpful to have this technical information widely available. What I wanted to do is suggest that you switch these titles to the terms like propionyl. Terms like propanoyl and ethanoyl are from a dialect inflicted by nonchemists on chemists. This is the way that chemists around the world talk about these things, otherwise the terminology rings weirdly. What do you think? I would be glad to return the favor by enhancing your newly hatched articles. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Smokefoot, thanks for the message. I decided to create articles on some simple acyl chlorides based on discussion with a current late high-school chemistry student about what they had had trouble learning recently. In preparation for starting these articles, I looked at current textbooks in use on a range of science courses and I can't see much use of the term "propionyl"; "propanoyl" is the term in every textbook I saw and it's used by every source I've cited. So I think it makes sense to use the systematic name to be in tune with the needs and expectations of modern readership. Hope that's OK. Blythwood (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Fairfax (typeface)

[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Fairfax (typeface), which you proposed for deletion. This is because it was prodded in the past and contested. Instead, I have started a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Fairfax (typeface), which you may comment on. I have explained my reasons for doing so there. Thanks! -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive this page

[edit]

Information icon Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 195.8 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 20:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN Art, Blythwood.

Unfortunately Usernamekiran has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The product fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN.

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

—usernamekiran(talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Typeface

[edit]

I am not an expert on typefaces, I just noted there were many in the introductions cats without further subcategorization. This is especially true in the later ers, circa 1980s. At present, I think the subcats should continue as they are simply being moved from "introductions" to "typface and font introductions". If it is true that the dates on individuals typefaces are taken off due to uncertainty, we can remove those specific ones. Perhaps add decade subcats for typrefaces and fonts that we know generally began during a certain period but not a particular year?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this fix the problem? Having it be "introduced" in the 1930s? If it is a range of dates, wouldn't that cover any of these sorts of ambiguities?

Orphaned non-free image File:Boden UK logo.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Boden UK logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Blythwood/2017, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blythwood/2017/July&oldid=919845924"