User talk:Chris the speller

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Proposed deletion of Stefan Schaal

The article Stefan Schaal has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Editor experience invitation

Hi Chris the speller :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created

Hello! I noticed that you recently changed some instances of "newly-created" to "newly created". Would you mind explaining why it doesn't use a hyphen? Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:HYPHEN: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". Wikipedia is not alone; see Hypercorrections: Are you making these 6 common mistakes? in the section "Hyphenating "-ly" adverbs". Chris the speller ^yack 16:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that article. If you take out a word and the sentence no longer makes sense, then I think it should have a hyphen. You don't say "a[n] owned home". wholly and owned need to be together as a compound adjective. Plenty of style guides agree:

https://www.grammar.cl/english/compound-adjectives.htm However, if Wikipedia prefers no hyphen, I guess I give in. Wainuiomartian (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched nytimes.com and found "Nearly everyone wants a kitchen that has a brightly lit but glare-free work area". Your example web site has a top-level domain given out by Chile, probably not the best place for working out fine points on English usage. Wikipedia is not an outlier in using this style for compound modifiers; this is very mainstream. Chris the speller ^yack 01:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing Assembly to assembly

I see that you are changing capital-A Assembly to assembly using AWB, for example, here. The problem is that Assembly was supposed to be capitalized there because it's a proper noun. Please be careful with AWB. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which governs such cases. "New York State Assembly" is a proper name, but "the assembly" is generic. Wikipedia says these do not take capitals. Chris the speller ^yack 04:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, I think MOS:INSTITUTIONS could be improved. At merriam-webster.com, it has "assembly (2) capitalized : a legislative body". Also, it is capitalized by newspapers. Chris the speller ^yack 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INSTITUTIONS says "[g]eneric words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, church, high school) do not take capitals". I think Assembly is more similar to House of Representatives or the House, not a university or church. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Visiting Professor" or "visiting professor"

Hello, I notice that on the Wikipedia page Quentin Skinner you have gone through the "Visiting Professor"s and replaced them with "visiting professors". I can see why you might have done this. But I don't think it's right. Being a professor is a job title or honorific, not a qualification like a PhD. So, if you are a professor you are a professor of something or in some specific context, and when the professorship is being discussed as a specific job title, it is a proper noun, e.g. "Professor of Modern History at Oxford". At Leuven, Northwestern etc. Quentin Skinner's title was "Visiting Professor".

See for example the following advertisements from the LSE, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and the Leverhulme Trust. To quote the first link from the LSE, e.g. "The School may confer the title of Visiting Professor or Visiting Professor in Practice for a defined but renewable period on persons of appropriate distinction whose connections with the School are appropriate to the visiting title." So, I really think that it ought to be Visiting Professor for the same reason that I would raise an eyebrow at someone saying that LBJ was a "former vice president of the USA". However, I see from your profile that you're an editor of incredible experience, and so I wanted to ask you in case I was mistaken!

Re the MOS, I was under the impression that capitalisation occurred with professional titles "[w]hen a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description". One of the examples it gives is "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016." I thought that, in the Quentin Skinner article, "He has been Visiting Fellow at the Research School of Social Science at the Australian National University (1970, 1994, 2006); Visiting Professor" and so on was a clear application of this principle. But I may be wrong!

All best, Gulielmus (one of the happy contributors to the page in question). Gulielmus Rosseus (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)<[reply]

There is no comparison between "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016" and "Clement G. Hodges became visiting professor of history in 2016". Any number of universities can have visiting professors, and any one university can have more than one, for all I know, but only one person can be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. If "of the United Kingdom" gets dropped, then the capitals get dropped, so "Theresa May became prime minister in 2016" is correct. The MoS mentions "a formal title for a specific entity", so I do not change to lower case in "the James Barr Ames Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School"; that's specific. Raise your eyebrow all you want, but in Wikipedia, "former vice president of the United States" is as it should be, in lower case. Quotes from the LSE carry no weight about capitalization in Wikipedia; see WP:SSF, which says "The specialized-style fallacy (SSF) is a set of flawed arguments that are used in Wikipedia style and titling discussions. The faulty reasoning behind the fallacy of specialized style is this: because the specialized literature on a topic is (usually) the most reliable source of detailed facts about the specialty, such as we might cite in a topical article, it must also be the most reliable source for deciding how Wikipedia should title or style articles about the topic and things within its scope." If you consult a good dictionary, you will see that "professor" and 'visiting professor" are common nouns. Chris the speller ^yack 00:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning for me. However, I must also candidly tell you that your response is the only occasion (and I have perhaps just been too lucky till now) that I have felt talked down to by a fellow editor and treated without the appropriate respect that editors owe each other. Perhaps you are too used to these questions being cynical exercises in pedantry by ill meaning people. But I honestly wanted to better myself as editor of a page I have in recent years taken much care to improve. I was not precious about the particular set of words you changed (I did not even write them), made no attempt to undo the change, and instead explained that I was sincerely sure you knew better and asked for help.

It's all well and good to tell me that only one person can be PM of the UK, with an open mind I can interpret that as you just giving me an example of the rule rather than patronising me. Likewise, 'raise your eyebrow all you want', though falling below my own standard of professional courtesy for friendly enquiries to strangers working on the same project, may well just be jovial banter. But to actually cite a page on a species of faulty reasoning that I have not anywhere used, and to actually advise me to look at it, is really quite something. I was not citing the LSE or any other source for their authority, I was simply citing them as examples of uses of the term in ordinary English. It would have made no difference to me whether or not the example came from a NY Times article, or a book, or a cartoon, so long as the example was English. It won't surprise you that the easiest places to find the term "visiting professor", when I googled it, were academic websites. I do not, as it happens, consider advertisements on the LSE website as an authority on what the LSE thinks good style is, let alone what Wikipedia should consider good style! The website is not what I would consider specialized literature, it is not (I wouldn't think) written by specialists or even really written for a specialist audience. I can just about see why, if I adopt a very cynical posture, that you would think I was somehow trying to dazzle you into submission by invoking weighty authorities. I was not.

The consequence of this is an inevitable temptation to take what you have said far less seriously. I have resisted that, and instead consulting with greater care and diligence the MOS, and indeed further Wikipedia articles (e.g. on the US vice presidency), and found that you are correct. So I must still thank you for helping me to navigate the required style.

All the very best. Gulielmus. Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be feel insulted or offended. I intended this as an explanation for you and also for the many dozens of editors who watch my talk page, and especially for future editors who will (not 'might') question my capitalization changes in the future – I hope I can just refer to this discussion instead of reciting the whole thing again. It was meant for the least experienced editors as well as editors, such as yourself, who have extensive experience in Wikipedia but perhaps somewhat less in all the nuances of WP's style of capitalization. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyn Jenkins

Apologies for the revert, fat fingers on my part. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 23:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minsters and Minsters

Hi Chris, Did you know that some of your edits were turning politicians into a type of church? Ϣere SpielChequers 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that before I broke a few hundred more. I have fixed them all, as well as a few that were already wrong. Nothing like a typo in an AWB rule to make your day interesting. Chris the speller ^yack

No problem. I really miss AWB, in almost all other respects I'm glad I ditched windows for my personal stuff. But AWB is one of two software tools that I miss and can't run under chrome. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stornoway Lifeboat Station

Hi Chris the speller

Re your amendments.. As per Wiki instructions..

"In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference).

Directly juxtaposed with the person's name, such words begin with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama). Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France). Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices."

"Full names of institutions, organizations, companies, etc. (United States Department of State) are proper names and require capitals. Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context)."

So it is perfectly acceptable to have "President of the Institution, H.R.H. Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, although with hindsight, I think I'll put it the other way around...

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it was not "President of the Institution", it was "the President of the Institution", so per MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:INSTITUTIONS, "the president" and "the institution" are clearly common nouns, and should be in lower case. Chris the speller ^yack 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you just delete the 'the' ? Ojsyork (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't twist text to try to justify unnecessary capitalization. And "President of the Institution" does not appear to be a "formal title for a specific entity", as MOS:JOBTITLES requires for capitalization. A search within WP found "president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers" and "president of the Institution of Civil Engineers", so "president of the institution" is obviously not a "globally unique" title as required by MOS:PEOPLETITLES, and "institution" is not a "shorter but still specific form". Better to just follow the MoS than to resort to contortions to circumvent the MoS in order to use capitalization that suits your own taste. Chris the speller ^yack 16:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying not to conform to MoS - I just don't necessarily agree with your interpretation.

You clearly stated your change was because the phrase was "the President of the Institution" and not "President of the Institution", so I corrected that, and still you're not happy.

I am happy to accept president in lower case. However, in context of the article, the Institution is a shortened form of Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and is therefore by Wiki standards perfectly acceptable in capitalized form. Ojsyork (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS says caps OK for a "shorter but still specific form", but "the Institution" is not a specific form; lots of things can be referred to as "the institution". The MoS shows the example "The university offers programs in arts and sciences", even in an article where it is clear from the context what university is being mentioned. Chris the speller ^yack 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we just have to agree that things can be interpreted differently. After all, there is a clause on Wiki that does say, there is no wrong way. The article is very clearly about the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and I will fight my corner of the use of Institution on all of the several hundred RNLI pages.

I don't wish to get into battles. I just get a bit frustrated when someone jumps in on the work you have spent many hours putting together, whilst trying to get detail right, and add citations, and to comply with everyone's pet topics of adding nbsp, or endash, or capitals, or whatever, etc., only for someone to immediately correct you, like you are stupid.

Best wishes

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I correct an article it is not to make a point about a previous editor being stupid; it is to help bring the article up to WP standards. If you take it as an insult, that's your issue. The MoS clearly indicates that WP's style is to not capitalize "the Institution", and it says that because a consensus of editors has decided that unnecessary capitalization prevents this encyclopedia from looking professional. Your mention of no wrong way is apparently a shortening of "There is no wrong way to edit Wikipedia as long as you follow guidelines and policies and work to improve our articles." You omitted "follow guidelines". If you ignore the MoS you can expect other editors to make corrections (read WP:OWN); any frustration you may then feel is not the fault of the other editors. My talk page is not a good place to discuss your unhappiness with the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris

You are more than welcome to reply on my talk page. But I think we are probably nearly done.

I just wished to point out, I have no intentions of not complying with MOS. I make every effort to get it right. And I absolutely get your points.

But some things are left open for interpretation, it isn't always black and white. I believe it would be perfectly acceptable to keep using 'Royal National Lifeboat Institution' every time, but isn't that just a bit over the top and unneccessary?

I still think using 'Institution', on a page about the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, is perfectly acceptable. But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for frustration, I do feel it is far too easy for those patrolling Wiki to maintain standards, which I fully support, to forget how much effort it takes to create pages, and maybe they should ease off a little sometimes.

I leave with no bad feeling toward you whatsoever. This is just discussion. I trust the same of you to me. I have another 70+ lifeboat pages to create, our paths may cross again. Take care.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

capitalization

I am not going to bother to undo any of your October 2 edits to Benjamin Butler, but the convention is to capitalize "President," "Senator," and other positions when they are followed by the name of the president or senator. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not capitalized in WP when they are modified or pluralized: see MOS:JOBTITLE, e.g. "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." Chris the speller ^yack 01:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JOBTITLE, under Positions, offices, and occupational titles, states:

They are capitalized only in the following cases:

When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.... Maurice Magnus (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Wait, it also says, "The French king Louis XVI was later beheaded." You must be saying that we should use "President Andrew Jackson" but "U.S. president Andrew Jackson," because in the latter case "U.S. president" is a description. I don't know. I think that the "The" before "French king" is necessary to make it a description.Maurice Magnus (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the example from the MoS, "US president Richard Nixon". If you just follow the MoS and the example, instead of trying to work around it, we'll be happier. Chris the speller ^yack 13:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in United Kingdom politics and government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign secretary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives