User talk:DocWatson42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


On the spelling of "subgenre" (18 November 2014)
Points to consider
  1. I bet that just about any hyphened word composed of two properly spelled words will not trigger a spell checker. E.g., Firefox is just fine with both "sewage-food" and "swill-Bolshoi", probably for grammatical reasons (using a hyphen as a compound modifier).
  2. Spell checkers have a deliberately limited vocabulary, in order to limit false positives, and "subgenre" may not included in your spell checker's list, leading to a false negative.
Research completed

I checked before I started, and OneLook Dictionary Search gives four results for "sub-genre" (none of which lead to an actual, valid entry) versus twelve for "subgenre", of which:

  • nine lead to entries for that spelling in dictionaries;
  • one is Wikipedia's redirect to the "Genre" article;
  • one is Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary's entry for "sub-" (which only gives the syllabification for the word);
  • one is a 404 error for ODLIS: Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science.

Also, I checked the British side of the Oxford Dictionaries, and still came up with "subgenre" for a search for "sub-genre".

Thus I believe "subgenre" is the correct spelling.


November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Law of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • from [[Roman Law]] known as [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]], as opposed to [[common law]]). The body of statutes and laws governing civil law and procedure are set out in the Civil Code of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
With your valuable contribution this article is good enough. Iynod Agat (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

<mystified> Okay—thank you. But which article?</mystified>—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ann Sheridan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a Woman Could Be an Oomph Girl"], by Art Rogoff, ''[[The New York Times]]'', September 12, 1988]</ref><ref>[http://classiccinemagold.com/ann-sheridan/ann-sheridan-the-oomph-girl/ "The Oomph Girl"]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Clifford Grey[edit]

Hello! I do not believe that the hyphen is an error that justifies the use of "sic". Some mainstream newspapers use it. See, for example this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And yet the Oxford Dictionaries do not, so I believe that usage to be a mistake.—DocWatson42 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Nor, for that matter, does the spelling "sub-genre" appear in any dictionary I was able to find, so whether or not it is a mistake, on close examination it appears to be one, which I strongly feel merits a "sic".—DocWatson42 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the overuse of "sic" would be a mistake, so we must agree to disagree. Happy holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear DocWatson42,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

And to you, sir or madam. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of title[edit]

We both had different names for an anime in the article Shizuku-chan. I used "Picchipichi Shizuku-chan" because an external source and other articles uses this name. I replaced "Pitchipichi Shizuku-chan" with the previous name because I cannot find reliable uses of "Pitchipichi" elsewhere. Is it correct? TheGGoose (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be. The relevant authority is the "Romanization" section of the Manual of Style/Japan-related articles.—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

questions on copy-editing[edit]

Hi, I'm a journalist with the Boston Globe interested in learning about copy-editing at Wikipedia. If you're available to talk in the next couple of days, want to email me? thanks! Brittpeterson (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc[edit]

I'm surprised no one has done this before, but I've given your account the wp:Reviewer right. This means you can accept as well as revert edits to articles covered by wp:pending changes. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! ^_^ (I don't interact with other editors very much, so it doesn't surprise me that I haven't had such an "upgrade".)—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 18 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Portal bar changes[edit]

I do not think it's sound to refer to a 2010 talk page that doesn't mention {{portal bar}} to run a systematic move of portal bars from elsewhere on the page to the See also section. Indeed {{portal}}'s documentation recommends putting portals in another section if a See also section doesn't exist. It's bad form to create such a section for a portal bar. Also {{portal bar}}'s documentation indicates that common practice is to put the portal bar at the bottom of the page—it isn't appropriate to switch these instances systematically based on a minor, five-year old discussion. Please achieve a renewed consensus before systematically changing these articles.

Also under what guidance are you changing {{'s}} instances into {{-'}}s? The former displays better for me and the documentation would indicate that the latter was not intended to follow italics but for other use cases. czar  10:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are still making this {{portal bar}} change. Through BRD, I am contesting these changes. What is your rationale for creating empty See Also sections against the documentation's guidance? czar  23:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay in replying. I'm away this weekend, but I will try to reply in detail on Sunday or Monday.—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, I apologize for the delay in responding. To take the issues in order:
  1. I base my changes of portal templates on MOS:SEEALSO and Wikipedia talk:Portal/Archive 5#Question relating to portals, the latter of which I do not regard as minor, but the opinion of a Wikipedia administrator and the current fourth-ranking contributor. Placing portal links solely in the See also section makes much more sense than does the somewhat conflicting and contradictory instructions of {{portal}} and {{portal bar}} (though both templates' instructions also state that they may be placed in the See also section). Working from that logic, those two templates, and {{portal-inline}} (whose instructions state "Within articles, this template is meant to be placed at the bottom of the article in the See also section"), are merely different tools for the same task, to be used as appropriate to a particular article's layout. I use {{portal}} when the See also section is long enough, {{portal bar}} when either something is intruding from above (usually an image) or {{portal}} will significantly protrude below—this is more elegant than using {{portal}} in conjunction with {{-}} or {{clear}}—and {{portal-inline}} when an infobox is much longer than the text of the article, and would thus push a {{portal}} or {{portal bar}} far down the page.
  2. I use a small font, for which {{-'}} displays better than {{'s}}, especially with letters with right-handed verticals (M's, d's), from which, when they are italicized, I can hardly distinguish the apostrophe. Any extra space doesn't bother me. {{-'}} also nearly matches {{-"}}, which I have occasion to use; it's easy to use both, and not worry about other templates.
  3. The third change I made on the Titanfall article was to convert the {{Commons category-inline}} template to a {{Commons category}} template, which is in accordance with WP:LAYOUTEL, as there are other external links in the External links section.
  4. The fourth change I made on the Titanfall article was to move the {{good article}} template to after the external links. I am unaware of any mention of the placement of this type of template in the MoS (searches: "good article", "featured article"), but their instructions state "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis."


DocWatson42 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
(1) I already explained why it's a weak basis to use a 2010 comment to systematically change something five years later. Consensus on the {{portal bar}} page is to remove the "See also" section line—I just haven't done it yet. The idea is that it's really ugly to have a bar by itself across the middle of a page. And for making a See also section just for a portal bar, your WP:LAYOUTEL says Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates. (2) It may display better for you, but then it displays poorly for everyone else, including the average reader. Instead of changing the wikicode, a better solution would be modifying your own browser (your solitary case) to fix the overlapping text, or if you feel the issue is more prevalent, to have a discussion about the template to make sure it displays properly for other readers at small sizes. But the answer is not modifying arbitrary articles to not use the most common template to suit your own situation. (3) I'm aware of WP:LAYOUTEL and there are not many links (there are two), so I'd prefer to keep the inline with no harm done. (4) I'm fine this. I do it myself when I can. czar  11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text added at Climate Fiction[edit]

Could you please explain this edit? Better yet, please add the explanation to the existing thread at article talk, which is

Talk:Climate_fiction#"Genre" or "theme" or "category" or "_____"?

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. I'm afraid I meant to point to this page (the essay at the top), not my top page.—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ach so. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

This is a neutral notice of a discussion at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron#Subsection: RE: "visit" over using either the word "visit" or the phrase "go to" in a particular context. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Goliath may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)