User talk:Omnipaedista

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


If I left you a message on your talk page, please respond on your talk page. Comments which I find to be uncivil, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response.


References on family trees[edit]

Hi, I noticed your edit to Template:Coleridge family tree where I had added references, which removed the list of refs. Your edit summary said "references do not belong on navigation boxes" so can you suggest the best way to do this, because otherwise the articles on which the trees appear have "reference needed" tags (& therefore show up on the cleanup lists I'm trying to improve). Are you saying that because they are in a box Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't apply?— Rod talk 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Generally speaking it is a bad idea to include references in navigation boxes because navigation boxes are supposed to merely summarize the content of Wikipedia articles. (The same applies to dab pages.) Every piece of information on Wikipedia that is likely to be challenged should be sourced but the appropriate way to do that is to add citations to an article. You could create an article called Coleridge family and then move to it the citations that appear on the Template:Coleridge family tree; confer Keynes family and Template:John Maynard Keynes. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources and Wikipedia:SUMMARY#References. —Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I agree about true navboxes but family trees seem a bit different as they are making claims aboout dates of birth & death + relationships between individuals (could include BLPs). I have no particular interest in the Coleridge family but have been working on the Somerset cleanup list and Bristol cleanup list where several of these appear as "references needed" on the articles where they appear. Looking at Wikipedia:Family trees it appears there are several alternative ways to present them but I would argue they should have references etc eg Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury#Ancestors where I added refs.— Rod talk 15:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you add a section called "Coleridge family tree" to the article on Coleridge and move the citations there? In any case, footnotes should not appear below nav boxes per WP:APPENDIX. —Omnipaedista (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Family trees#References in family trees formatted as navboxes. as I think this is a wider issue than just one article (or navbox) and someone may have already found the best way to tackle this.— Rod talk 15:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Template[edit]

You reverted multiple edits to {{Theosophy}}. Because your edit removed WP:TemplateData documentation (in addition to other things), it turned up in this log. Can you tell me what the problem was? ({{Ping}} me; my watchlist is hopeless.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I noticed that after User:Ratreya added TemplateData, articles that feature this template (e.g., Helena Blavatsky) appeared to have a line break at their beginning (right above the first sentence). I assumed that this problem was caused by bad code and decided to revert the latest changes in order to fix the formatting problem. I hope this is not an inherent problem with TemplateData. —Omnipaedista (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that the problem was not getting the "noinclude" high enough (I believe it needs to be on same line as the last character that's actually in the template, not on the next one). I've created Template:Theosophy/doc to hold the TemplateData information; I prefer keeping it all on the /doc pages anyway, and that much is working correctly. I'm not sure that the TemplateData correctly describes the template any longer, since I've not restored the changes to the template itself. Would you do something for me? Click here to edit the /doc page, and then click the "Manage TemplateData" button in the upper left. Please add a plain-English description of the template (something that tells editors whether or not this is the template they're looking for), and add any working parameters, or remove any non-existent ones. Then ping me and let me know how it went. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I inserted the description "This is a template summarizing some important aspects of the Theosophical Movement" using the TemplateData editor. I think all's fine. —Omnipaedista (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Omnipaedista: Can we reintroduce my changes to this template now that the "noinclude" root-cause was addressed? Ratreya (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course we can. WhatamIdoing has already restored your edits by copypasting them from {{Theosophy}} to {{Documentation}} and including the latter template in the former. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That didn't quite do it. My latest edit reintroduced the functionality. I did a few spot checks and everything looks good but please make sure the issue you were trying to fix has not resurfaced. Ratreya (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've just checked it. All's fine! --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Paolo Virno[edit]

I reverted your edit [1] because I don't think it's a superior title for that section. "Thought" could mean many things and it doesn't really make sense as a title in that context, so I changed it back to "Theories" as that's more clear in my opinion. If you think "Theories" isn't appropriate, maybe "Ideas"? The section itself is a bit confusing and not very cohesive, so perhaps it could be rewritten with a particular title in mind. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! LibertyOrDeath (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I changed it because that section title is standard in articles about intellectuals (cf. e.g. Karl Marx#Thought). "Ideas" could be used as well. In my opinion, "theories" is vague and inappropriate: theories are always theories about something. —Omnipaedista (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree "theories" is also vague, it just seemed less confusing relative to "thought". In the past I've seen mostly "Theories" or "Works" in articles about philosophers, except for when the title is something like "Thought(s) on...". I see you've changed it to "Work", I agree that's a better title. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I am glad we agree! --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

David Hilbert section name change[edit]

Hi, Omnipaedista -- On Dec. 15, you edited the section name Hilbert solves Gordan's Problem in David Hilbert to change Problem to problem, which may be entirely proper, but it raises some issues which you might want to know about.

  • First, it broke a section-level redirect from Gordan's Problem to that section. I've fixed the redirect, but I thought I should give you a heads up about what happened. Your project seems to be enforcing WP standards of various kinds, and the volume of edits suggests that you may be using a script of some kind. If so, you may wish to update the script so that, if it changes a section title, it also fixes section-level redirects that are affected by the name change. Just a suggestion ...
  • Second, why no edit summary? I mean, if the project is to enforce WP standards, then, well, um ...
  • Third, I'm not sure the change is really proper. For instance, in Constance Reid's book about Hilbert, the term is always spelled Gordan's Problem, i.e., it's treated as a proper noun. The same in the MathWorld [2] article on the subject, etc.

Thanks! Eleuther (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am aware of such problems and I try to check for redirects. The problem is that editors do not mind leaving commented out notes or anchor templates warning about redirects in the appropriate sections. Whenever I create a redirect page to a section, I always insert a commented out note to that section. Nope, I do not use a script of any kind and, personally, I am opposed to their use; I believe that everything has to be done manually to assure quality control. I almost always leave an edit summary except for the very rare cases when I am editing from a public PC--due to time limits. The change I made is proper for Wikipedia ("problem" is a common noun). Wikipedia has a different Manual of Style than other online projects. It is also a well known fact that academic publications follow styles (such as APA, MLA, and Chicago) that do not have specific rules for capitalization; Wikipedia however does have specific rules. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Someday maybe I will understand the significance of commented out notes. But for the moment, my point is this. It's good for WP to have standards, and yes, "problem" is a common noun. Gordan no doubt had many common problems, as we all do. But one particular problem, posed by Gordan, has become known in the mathematical literature as Gordan's Problem (proper noun, properly capitalized). I provided citations for this, and can provide more. WP's standards are fine and good, but they shouldn't be taken to override the normal usage in the subject domain. Right? (If you don't object, I will revert this particular change in a day or two.) Cheers Eleuther (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there are some exceptions to the MoS. I can accept the argument that if the relevant literature predominantly favors a capitalized version of a common noun, Wikipedia could abide by it--although actually defining "predominantly" is not so easy. E.g., Nicod's axiom virtually never appears capitalized but Pascal's Wager, Loki's Wager, Gabriel's Horn, Oxford Movement, Austrian School frequently, if not predominantly, appear capitalized. Since you provided a source supporting the capitalization of Gordan's Problem, I have no objection to the reverting of my edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What is "notoc"?[edit]

I saw this added to Iain Pears. WCCasey (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See Template:NOTOC/doc. It stands for "no table of contents". It is usually placed in articles that are constituted solely (a) by a single block of text undivided by sections and (b) a few appendices. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What does it do? WCCasey (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The template/magic word "notoc" removes the table of contents of the wiki article. This is desirable in some cases for stylistic reasons. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If the article is later expanded enough to have a toc, should the template be removed? WCCasey (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
There are no strict rules; according to common practice, if a biographical article has at least one section of main text (e.g., "Life" or "Work"/"Career"), then it could/should have a ToC. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Places of birth[edit]

Hi: using the contemporary political status makes perfect sense, IMO. However, it raises the issue of what level of political entity to use. I noticed that you placed Heidelberg in the German Empire (Ebert) but Berlin in the Kingdom of Prussia (Luther). It would be more consistent to use the Empire for both...or the Grand Duchy of Baden for Heidelberg. :-) Drow69 (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no wikiwide guideline regarding this matter. Personally, I sometimes stop at the vassal-status/federal state-status, sometimes I give only the highest-level political entity, sometimes I include all levels. I just edited the articles you mentioned so that they feature precise ("all levels") geographic information. Omnipaedista (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 354 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this template to your page.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
  Buster Seven Talk 19:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία ἑλληνιστί[edit]

Αγαπητέ Omnipaedista, απευθύνομαι εδώ καθώς εδώ φαίνεται να έχεις την πιο ενεργή παρουσία και δεν είμαι βέβαιος για το αν θα λάμβανες την ειδοποίηση από αλλού. Πρόσφατα ασχολήθηκα με την τεκμηρίωση της τρέχουσας πρότασης στο https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_Greek_4 και κατόπιν ξεκίνησα την λημματογραφία στο αντίστοιχο grc incubator καθώς και ολοκλήρωσα την μετάφραση του περιβάλλοντος σήμερα. Σκοπεύω να συνεχίσω να ασχολούμαι συστηματικά έως όταν γίνει η Οὐικιπαιδεία πραγματικότητα και περάσει τον σκόπελο της επιτροπής με τον ένα τρόπο ή τον άλλο. Ο σκοπός της επικοινωνίας μου με εσένα είναι:

  • το να δω αν προτίθεσαι να συμμετέχεις στο incubator, καθώς κατά το παρελθόν υπήρξες διαχειριστής του. Ελπίζω πως ναι, καθώς όπως γνωρίζεις χρειάζεται να έχει μια ελάχιστη κίνηση.
  • τις όποιες συμβουλές έχεις να μου δώσεις ως προς το test project ως κάποιος που έχει ασχοληθεί πολύ έως τώρα
  • τις όποιες συμβουλές έχεις να μου δώσεις ως προς την τρέχουσα πρόταση για δημιουργία του Wiki

Με εκτίμηση, Gts-tg (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Αγαπητέ Gts-tg, συγχαρητήρια για τις προσπάθειές σου. Δυστυχώς το μόνο εγχείρημα στο οποίο είμαι ενεργός πλέον είναι η αγγλική Wikipedia. Ο μόνος τρόπος για να ανοίξει το site grc.wikipedia είναι να αλλάξει η language proposal policy της Wikimedia. Προσπάθησα κάτι τέτοιο χωρίς επιτυχία το 2008—δες [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (τα δύο τελευταία είναι αιτήματα προς το SIL International). Όσον αφορά την πρόταση νο. 4 στο Meta, το μόνο αξιόλογο επιχείρημα είναι ότι η λόγια ελληνική είναι η επίσημη γλώσσα της κοινότητας του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως που αποτελεί μία από τις μεγαλύτερες αποστολικές έδρες (βλ. Category:Apostolic sees). Το ότι το ΟΠΚ δεν είναι κράτος είναι αδιάφορο (βλ. "A language is a dialect with an army and navy"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) Ευχαριστώ πολύ για τα παραπάνω, θα φανούν ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμα για προετοιμασία εάν και εφόσον απορριφθεί η πρόταση οπότε θα επιδιώξω σε βάθος χρόνου αλλαγή της πολιτικής της επιτροπής. Εάν τυχαίνει να έχεις υπόψη σου κάποια άλλα άτομα τα οποία θα μπορούσα να προσεγγίσω σχετικά με το θέμα θα ήταν επίσης χρήσιμο (προς το παρόν βλέπω τους παλιούς συνεισφέροντες στο ιστορικό και προσπαθώ να έρθω σε επαφή μαζί τους). Ευχαριστώ και πάλι, και καλό μήνα. Gts-tg (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Αγαπητέ Omnipaedista, χαιρετώ και πάλι. Η κατάσταση της πρότασης έχει μεταβληθεί αρκετά από την τελευταία επικοινωνία μας (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_Greek_4) με περισσότερα επιχειρήματα και περισσότερους υποστηρικτές. Εν ολίγοις σκοπεύω να επικοινωνήσω κάποια στιγμή σχετικά σύντομα με το LangCom στο mailing list τους και να τους ζητήσω να την επιθεωρήσουν. Πριν το κάνω αυτό όμως, θα ήθελα να σου ζητήσω εάν μπορείς να διαθέσεις ένα ελάχιστο χρόνο ώστε να η πρόταση να έχει και την δική σου τοποθέτηση. Αυτό 1ον γιατί αφιέρωσες κατά το παρελθόν πολύ χρόνο και άφησες αξιόλογο έργο πίσω στο incubator ως παρακαταθήκη, 2ον γιατί η κάθε επιπρόσθετη διατύπωση υπέρ αποτελεί ένα επιπλέον λιθαράκι στην επιτυχία της όλης προσπάθειας, και 3ον γιατί νομίζω πως η τρέχουσα πρόταση είναι η πλέον καλοδιατυπωμένη και πλήρης σε σχέση με αυτές που είχαν γίνει στο παρελθόν (πέρα από τα επιχειρήματα μέχρι και οι μεταφράσεις και το λογότυπο είναι έτοιμο). Οπότε εάν την απορρίψουν με βάσει κάποια υποπαράγραφο της πολιτικής, ας την απορρίψουν και κατόπιν θα ξεκινήσω την προσπάθεια για αλλαγή της πολιτικής, όσο καιρό και αν πάρει. Αν δεν την απορρίψουν, ε φυσικά αυτό είναι και το ζητούμενο. Ωστόσο αυτό που σκοπεύω είναι η όποια ενδεχόμενη απόρριψη να γίνει όσο πιο δύσκολα γίνεται εκ μέρους τους και να είναι οφθαλμοφανές πως κάτι δεν στέκει καθόλου καλά με τη λογική αυτή και σε σχέση με την συγκεκριμένη γλώσσα, κάτι που θα δώσει πολεμοφόδια για μελλοντική αλλαγή πολιτικής. Οπότε γράψε όσο πιο αναλυτικά μπορείς και θεωρείς χρήσιμο, και γράψε με την πίστη πως θα γίνει πραγματικότητα. Gts-tg (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Or (heraldry)[edit]

When you decapitalize the tincture "Or" it then is very hard to distinguish it from the conjunction "or". That is the whole reason that heraldic writers capitalize the tincture name. Despite your comment in the edit, I don't see the situation described at MOS:CAP. Namely, I don't see the situation discussed in which a technical word is normally capitalized in the literature where it appears for the sake of clarity. -- EncycloPetey 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The capitalization convention is neither endorsed by Wikipedia (see: WP:BLZ#Capitalization), nor frequently (if at all) found in the relevant literature (see, for example, Alfred William W. Morant's An Alphabetical Dictionary of Coats of Arms Belonging to Families ..., Volume 2, 1874, p. 702 and Bernard Burke's General Armory, 1864, p. 1007 and Debrett's Peerage, 1836, p. 487 which have "a fess or"). Disambiguation is achieved anyway by italicizing the word as per MOS:Ety. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of other considerations, WP:BLZ#Capitalization does not apply, as this issue pertains to the text of an article, and not to a blazon of arms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I also provided citations to the relevant literature. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Two years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
cleanup
... you were recipient
no. 820 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Adam Karl August von Eschenmayer into Non-philosophy. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've never done that before and I do know the copypasting policy (I even reported another editor for doing that despite being warned about it). This time is the first time I did it. I should have attributed the change to the original contributors; I was simply carried away because it was essentially just a couple of sentences. ----Omnipaedista (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
There's a bot report that is flagging these kinds of edits, User:EranBot/Copyright/rc. It's intended to pick up copyright violations, but these end up on the report as well. It would help if you could remember to do it each time in the future, so as to simplify and speed up assessing these reports. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetic psychology[edit]

Hi, I noticed your recent redirect at the top of the page of Behavioural Genetics. I don't think we need the redirect to display at the top of the page, given that the connection between Franz Brentano and Behavioral Genetics is not not entirely clear from the Brentano page, which does not mention Genetic Psychology. As a behavioral geneticist myself, I was intrigued to see the link to Franz Brentano, who I had never heard of as linked in any way to Behavioral Genetics and was disappointed that there was no information on the Brentano page about Behavior Genetics. The only connection I could find is a link on the Brentano page to Heterophenomenology, which appears to have nothing to do with behavioral genetics. Would it be better to include Franz Brentano under the "See Also" on the Behavioural Genetics page? Or to remove the redirect altogether? Vrie0006 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines "Genetic psychology" (as a term introduced by Franz Brentano) as follows: "Genetic psychology studies psychological phenomena from a third-person point of view. It involves the use of empirical experiments and thus satisfies the scientific standards we nowadays expect of an empirical science." In present-day jargon this is called heterophenomenology ("a term coined by Daniel Dennett to describe an explicitly third-person, scientific approach to the study of consciousness and other mental phenomena"). A Google Books search reveals that the term "Genetic psychology" in the context of the history of the philosophy of mind is much discussed in recent academic publications. WP:DLINKS says: "disambiguation links should be placed at the top of an article, where they are most visible. For alternatives that are related to the article but are not a source of ambiguity, the 'See also' section at the end of the article is more appropriate." Brentano's concept of genetic psychology is not an alternative to behavioural genetics; it is something very different from the actual topic of the behavioural genetics article. Thus, we need a hatnote to indicate an entirely different and notable use of the same term. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha. Many thanks for explaining the purpose of the hatnote. Vrie0006 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! ----Omnipaedista (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works[edit]

Would you like to support the creation of and/join the proposed Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Greek alphabet[edit]

ΓΓ was surely already pronounced as NG in ancient times, for instance in ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ?----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. See my latest edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Modern Greek[edit]

Hi, I noticed this [8] (and similar edits in some other articles if I remember correctly). Could I ask where you got that [ɲ] from? I can sort of imagine that some nasalization might spread from the preceding [m] onto the underlying /j/ segment, but it's not something I remember seeing mentioned as a prominent phenomenon in phonological treatments, and if it does occur, it would seem to be a rather minor effect of allophonic assimilation, so I'm not really convinced we should describe things at this level rather than giving the underlying phoneme (which surely remains /j/). Fut.Perf. 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The standard realization of /mj/ is [mɲ] according to the authoritative Triantafyllidis Dictionary (see, e.g., [9]). --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose I should read the introduction to the Triantafyllidis Dictionary, but what exactly is meant by the "standard realization"? For example, the pronunciation of ντ in may words, say, ποντίκι, seems to be changing from [nd] to [d], but T only documents [nd]. --Macrakis (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
In my humble opinion it is problematic that the TD only documents [nd], but this omission does not diminish the reliability of the TD. Moreover, the argument is somewhat irrelevant. It is well known there is free variation between [d] and [nd] in Greek, while there is no free variation between [mj] and [mɲ]. According to virtually every source, the sound cluster [mj] does not exist in Greek. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"I'm in love with Jacques Derrida"[edit]

Philosophy Barnstar Hires.png The Philosophy Barnstar
Edmund Husserl 1910s.jpg
Thanks for putting some of the meat in Meataphysics and some of the phun in Phunomenology!!
It all adds up, you know .... and Edmund would have been proud, I'm sure.
Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) [10]
Thank you very much! --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Your careful work is much appreciated. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) I would have tried my hand at "flamebaiting", but I couldn't get the blighters in the fricken trap! [11]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

I just have to say, I haven't seen you around WikiProject Comic before, but your edits, care and meticulousness are great! I hope the Project sees lots more of your work! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and support! I try to help as best as possible. You've also been doing some amazing work for the past few years. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation "Chow's Theorem"[edit]

You've been around WP considerably longer than I have and show a definite interest in mathematics, so I was wondering if you'd be willing to look through my recent efforts at disambiguating Chow's Theorem to check if I've been on the right track.

I'll admit that my mathematics background is not strong enough to recognize whether Chow's Theorem, Chow's Lemma, and the Chow-Rachevskii Theorem are all referring to the same underlying mathematical entity, just expressed in the slightly different mathematical languages of the diverse disciplines in which they are used.

Thanks.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to check it out now but will do so when I have more time! --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course. I think I did them correctly, but just wanted to have someone knowledgeable take a look - eventually. Thanks.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that you did them correctly. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes -> Citations[edit]

Hi -- can you tell me why you're changing "Footnotes" to "Citations"? Is there some requirement that this be done? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Just took a look at WP:FNNR and it says "Editors can use any title they choose" for these sections. I'm not sure "Citations" is a very good choice; "Footnotes" seems more natural to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Nope, it is not a strict requirement; rather common practice. We could discuss it. First of all, citations is a commonly used section title; see the article Analog Science Fiction and Fact —I have never edited it— or Oscar Wilde. As you can see in the Oscar Wilde article, 'footnotes' is reserved for 'explanatory footnotes,' while 'citations' for citation footnotes (btw, WP:FNNR calls the latter '_citation_ footnotes'). A good practice in Wikipedia is that sections should not bear confusingly similar titles: my rationale is that 'footnotes' and 'notes' are confusingly similar to each other; but I would not insist, if you disagree. However, reserving 'footnotes' for 'citation footnotes' seems to be at odds with common practice wikiwide. Apart form the naming, the ordering needs to be changed in several articles on fantasy pulp magazines: WP:APPENDIX dictates that 'explanatory footnotes' go below above 'citation footnotes.' --Omnipaedista (talk)
Well, I don't own any of the articles, of course, so you're free to make the change. Personally I think "Notes" for the explanatory material, "References" for the citations, and "Sources" for a list of the works cited, is a good choice, though I haven't been at all consistent about this in the articles I've worked on. I'm surprised to see that explanatory footnotes go lower; that's not common practice in featured articles. I'll have a look and might start a conversation on the talk page suggesting that we revisit that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(outdent)My bad; I meant to write 'explanatory footnotes' go above 'citation footnotes.' (I was referring to this article.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Please see Talk:Fantastic Novels#Appendix titles. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's generally not very productive to make mass edits to things that are likely to be be decided on a case-by-case basis by the editors of the individual articles. Where the MoS leaves things up to the editors of an article to decide, as is the case with these section titles, you're going to get reverted some of the time. And what if another editor comes along with a different set of preferred titles and mass-edits the same articles to their preferences? In many cases this is going to be wasted effort on your part, and you might find you annoy some editors who've made careful decisions about the section titles, by consensus on the article talk pages. If I were you I'd stick to making changes that are actually mandated by the MoS, and avoid changing things that are left to editor discretion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Your advice is reasonable. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. The point is that I did provide a rationale in my edit summaries. I also was under the impression that you wouldn't mind me making those changes judging by the above discussion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
No inconvenience, and sorry if I sounded a bit minatory above; I just meant to make a suggestion. And you're quite right about the articles I've worked on -- since you're changing it to my own preference, of course I don't mind. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I would like to note that my proposal is not about exercising any kind of misplaced consistency. It's a proposal towards less confusing conventions in a specific series of articles. Thanks for the feedback! --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)