User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 27

Happy New Year, Oknazevad!

Happy New Year!

Oknazevad,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Oknazevad!

Happy New Year!

Oknazevad,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Club

Hello. First of all, Happy New Year. I want to talk about the Bullet Club edition. Recently, I saw that many articles about stables includes a sub-group section. Fine. However, I don't see any kind of criteria for inclusion. For example, AEW Inncer Circle. At one point, the sub.group section included sub groups like Jericho-Santana-Ortiz, Guevara-santana-ortiz, jericho-guevara, jericho-hager, jericho-mjf, mjf-wardlow... so basicly, fans included every combination possible. But that's how stables work, everyone is gonna work with each other at some point. The subgroups with article I think is the proper way to separate random formations from notable ones.I mean, if the formation isn't notable enough to create an article, if sources doesn't gave that formation weight enough, there is no reason to include in another article. It's not necessary to include every name of The Bucks with their friend or Page and Takahashi formation between 17 and 18. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I agree, but some of those do have specific names that were used by the promoters (like the Hung Bucks). The issue, in part, is because English sourcing tends to gloss over those subgroups whereas Japanese coverage doesn't. But it was one in particular that made me revert. Removing the Bullet Club OGs, which was the other side in the feud that lead to the Elite departing stuck me as definitely incorrect, as it's outright mentioned in the article body. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you have a solution. A point in between? My major concern is, like Inner Circle or JAS, people include every combination of members as sub-group, so that's why I went with the "articles only", which is pretty common in Wikipedia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cola wars

Could you explain edit? Please use edit summaries. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the chart is to show equivalent products. The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo both have similar product lines, but so does Keurig Dr Pepper, especially the latter's namesake soda. Not including them would leave an incomplete picture of the market, especially when it leaves questions about who own 7Up in the US if PepsiCo doesn't (their rights are solely overseas). In other words, removal makes the chart less helpful entirely. oknazevad (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also not it's always been there as long as the chart has, so removal should have been discussed first. oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the article is to document the rivalry between Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Keurig Dr Pepper simply does not feature in the scope of the article, which is not Comparison of soft drinks by various different companies. There are plenty of other companies who also produce similar drinks. Are you saying that they should also be added, or is there something special about Keurig Dr Pepper?

Your concern about 7Up in the US is nothing compared to the issue that a fair number of these products, by one or other company, are only available in the US market. So the entire table is US-centric, without any indication of this.

Besides all that, the table has the taint of original research. Where are the sources that say these products are essentially the same and compete with one another?

I shall raise these point on the talk page. Thanks.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info (box) wars

I'm saying it's good manners and courteous to familiarize yourself with an article before making significant changes without discussion. Coming in guns blazing to an article and making major changes without familiarity is uncollaborative behavior. No one in that discussion has done that. It may be a pet peeve but save your ire for those who transgress. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The back and forth edits at New York City have. Keep the discussion on the talk page, please. Side discussions don't get seen by others. oknazevad (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing first letter of fragments in table entries

Re this revert, why would you capitalize in that context? MOS:CAPS says to avoid unnecessary caps. This is not a heading or a sentence or a proper name, so caps are not needed, are they? Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an entry in a caption in a chart. Although a fragment, it is not a single word and it should be in sentence case. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a provision in MOS:CAPS or some place that suggests treating multi-word fragments as sentences? Dicklyon (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LISTCAPS, especially the part about consistency. oknazevad (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A table entry is not much like a list item. And yes I am striving for consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, leave it capitalized, to be consistent with other entries in the column of the table. That's my point. oknazevad (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would downcase championship final as well, but that one's more often capped in sources, so I wasn't ready to fight that fight, too, against those claiming "it's a proper name". If that's the claim, the caps difference is right; if not, then consistently lowercase would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about single words, then? deferred, qualified, disqualified, forfeited, etc.? Does that make a difference? Dicklyon (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave them uppercase. A single word can be a fragment that belongs in sentence case depending on the use, and table entries, like list entries, are one such use. Just like section headers, which we don't leave lowercase if they're only one word. Because, bluntly, the lowercase in charts looks like crap.

To be frank, all these decapitalizing table edits are a total waste of your time. It accomplishes nothing, makes no actual improvement to the encyclopedia, and is just you indulging in a useless pet peeve that no one else gives a damn about. And now, because you had to make a deal about being reverted (because you hate being told you're wrong) its become a waste of other people's time. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michelob Ultra Arena

Thanks for removing the non-notable concerts. I've been doing this lately as well on a number of arena articles, per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:CRYSTAL. Feel free to contact me if you get pushback, as it may need to go to an RFC. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those guidelines about future events really apply to a listing of past events. My concern is that they're just WP:ROUTINE events, no more notable than a regular-season game for the arena's regular tenants, and not only don't need to be listed at all, they certainly don't need a full database of details like attendance and box office grosses. WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Only concerts that are particularly notable, because they were televised/filmed/recorded or are recurring annual events should be listed in prose and with sources. All else is just not notable. oknazevad (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States Space Force

As I said in my edit summary, I had not actually clicked the link to avoid potential malware. I checked both sites and am now assured www.spaceforce.com is legit. IPs are people too (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I appreciate your caution, but it's better to check than assume. oknazevad (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre vs Theater

@Oknazevad My apologies. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please WP:AFG … 4theloveofallthings (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I failed to assume good faith, just assumed that you were misinformed,

which happens and is no big deal. Sorry if it came off harsh.

As for the content, it's a common misconception, but it's still a misconception. The reason I reverted you on professional wrestling, by the way, was because of WP:RETAIN. Basically we shouldn't change from one spelling to another without a strong reason. oknazevad (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay! That makes sense to me now. Did my reasoning for the short description change your view on that at all? Out of curiosity.

And thinking on it now, perhaps the perceived harshness of it went to my head a bit — because you definitely did not break with assuming good faith. Sometimes things are just worded harshly and aren’t expected — as is life I suppose. I appreciate you for making me take a step back and check myself for thinking I could make an edit like that — especially without a solid source at hand. Was definitely a bad edit, and I needed to have someone tell me that. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for explaining. I appreciate the help, and I hope to grow more as an editor because of it. Cheers! 4theloveofallthings (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization proposal

If you haven't done so yet please review my proposal to end the capitalization battle at WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again. If you have an opinion on the matter please leave it at the link provided. Deadman137 (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve been awarded The Fundamental Wikipedian!

Oknazevad has gifted you
The Fundamental Wikipedian!

Copies of The Fundamental Wikipedian promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Gifting of TFW indicates the gifter would like to express apology regarding a recent dispute with you in which they were ultimately incorrect.
Explanation:

The “Theatre/Theater” debacle.

What is WikiLove?

Want to extend the kind gesture of The Fundamental Wikipedian? Just add {{subst:Fundamental Wikipedian}} to a user's talk page!

4theloveofallthings (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

Hi, I only changed "stars" to "portrays" as it sounded a little bit less sensationalist, but am happy to leave it as you prefer.

Kind regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's nothing sensationalist about "stars". It's standard English and the correct term for the act of being a lead actor in a series of film. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I've watched it and it is a pretty good show.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comma splice in Lightsaber article

Just curious. How is "The hilt of most lightsabers are straight and predominantly cylindrical, however there are other lightsaber hilt types." not a comma splice? "However" is not a conjunction, and it is being used as a conjunction. Many guides such as https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/commas/however-comma/, https://www.scribbr.com/commas/comma-before-or-after-however/, and MOS:HOWEVER imply that such construction should be avoided. WikiEditor50 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if misused, it's still a subordinate clause, not an independent one. Change out the "however" to "but" and it's obvious. In fact, that's the fox that should be applied, not the semicolon. oknazevad (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at it again, "though" is a better word choice. I have made that edit. oknazevad (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I misunderstood the sentence... Thanks for the clarification! WikiEditor50 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The particular difficulty with however (the real grammarians here can parse this out properly) is that it can be used two ways, and, without the punctuation in this particular sentence, a reader might at first think that what follows "however" was not a new clause but a modification, qualification, or limit on the geomentrical properties of "Most lightsabers".

Compare (for an imperfect eaample: "I love you however you may deny it" with "I love you; however, you may deny it".

Hence, I agree with inserting the comma in the enquirer's example. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, comma or semicolon? Based on your reply you seem to be referring to a semicolon. WikiEditor50 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both apply. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major robberies at JFK

Thanks for this edit to the article for John F. Kennedy International Airport. I'm not sure how I missed it, but I thought I was reinserting the content and doing so elsewhere in the article. I heartily agree with you that it belongs in the History section of the article and did a self revert back to your edit. Thanks again. Alansohn (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The looney tunes show

Sorry for the mistaken changes for the looney tunes show I respect you for the change my apologies that I kept on changing it I understand the lock on there, just a little ocd, if this happens again I will stop Kerstieisacupcake (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was there really is no justification for using the 2014 date. oknazevad (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry is it fine if we could be friends, since you’ve been here for 19 years Kerstieisacupcake (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]