Hello, Dohn joe (cute name) and welcome to wikipedia! A lot of help and suggestions are available here. Also, I'll be glad to answer any questions or give any advice. I'm not any kind of official here, but I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. I got involved the same way you did: by reading something and saying "hey, wait a minute, that's wrong."
I was especially pleased to see you working on various aspects of the Point Loma articles. That's one of my main areas of interest on Wikipedia and I'm glad to have some company. Please continue to chime in on those articles whenever you have time; some of them are pretty bare bones. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see you have input from the main expert on Port Loma above. Mine will be somewhat redundant. As Melanie has said, we are glad to have another serious editor for the article, though she is "more serious" than I!
"Fauna" is pretty much a subtopic of geography. Or maybe "Fauna and flora" if it comes down to that. I can probably find references to support this if I am forced to, but I am too lazy right now! "Nature" is not a normal heading for this topic. But good marks for guessing! And even better ones for talking it over! Another positive sign of a good editor!
I object to "home of" as informal language and have changed it whenever I have found it. Other editors have not been so picky, I admit. But it is inelegant IMO. If I am lucky, I could probably find something in "Elements of Style" to support this contention.
I am on less solid ground with the wording of "population of." It just seemed like extra words to me. Not short. I would cite "Elements of Style" there as well. KISS. But if you really insist, I can hardly argue unless some other editor agrees.
I've forgotten the "ecologically sensitive" removal. It probably seemed unecessary. Some of the stuff we paraphrase comes from WP:RELY material, but is often phrased in WP:POV terms. I am sort of leery about everyone claiming that nearly everything is "ecologically sensitive", that all of their initiatives are "green," etc. etc. This is often unencyclopedic because it is overstatement; exaggeration. Has the state or county labeled it "ecologically sensitive" compared to x? Or just simply labeled it "ecologically sensitive" along with everything else in the county/area? So unless the focus of the article was ecological in intent, I would tend to omit it as a "throwaway" phrase. Nothing wrong with exploring this in a "Ecology of Point Loma" BTW with a summary here.
The Port Loma article is very mature for a neighborhood article. One of the best around. Most towns and few cities are as good. So talking about a forked article on "Ecology..." is very near facetiousness!
Good catch on the location of the pushpin on the map in the Tijuana article - basically offshore from San Diego! I'm sorry to say I haven't a clue how maps work here. I wondered if the map was somehow generated automatically from the latitude and longitude, and I tried changing the lat/long to a slightly different version that I found online - the article lists 32 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds north and 117 degrees 2 minutes 0 seconds west, but online sources had 32 degrees 32 minutes 0 sec north and 117 degrees 1 minute 0 secs west. But my change had no effect on the location of the pin when I did a preview, so I didn't save the change. It must have something to do with that item in the infobox called "pushpin_map = Mexico" but I couldn't find any information about how it works.
Well, on further experimenting, when I made a drastic (and wrong) change in the latitude and previewed it, it DID move the pin. So it must have something to do with the lat/long. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see - my computer was reading the cached version of the map instead of the current version. About Playas de Rosarito vs. Rosarito Beach, I see you have posted that question on the discussion page, that was the right thing to do; let's see what kind of response you get. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
undid your revision to "y'all"; would like to discuss
Dohn Joe,
Actually, I didn't want to undo your entire edit, but I didn't know how to just undo part of it. These are the 2 points I wish to consider:
1. Where to put "replacement of "y'all" within a context". Should it go into "usage", where you had moved it? Maybe. But to me, the importance is more related to theory; no other pronoun behaves like this, so what does that mean? In fact, is "y'all" a pronoun, or is it a contraction of the pronoun "you", combined when contextually necessary with "all", which in this case, functions as something like a "collective"?
2. SNL/Chesterton material. What is the value of this? To me, its relevance is to the origin of "y'all". So I think this should go into "origin", where possible British roots of "y'all" are discussed. In fact, I think I'm going to move it there now.
Hi there. Here's what I was thinking with those two edits -
SNL/Chesterton stuff - I know that "you all" and "you-all" in general are relevant to the development of "y'all". But I don't see how the SNL quote in particular has anything to do with that development - the paragraph is talking about how the Scottish ye aw may have influenced "y'all" - but there's nothing to connect this one usage of "you all" by a modern-day Scot to either ye aw or "y'all". As for the Chesterton material - it's a hypothesis that his use of "you all" in that chapter may be used as a second-person plural. But that's original research, and it's not connected to the development of "y'all" either. So that's why I took those bits out.
Replacement of "y'all" - I'm not sure this is as interesting as you think. The reason it seems interesting is because in modern English 1) the second-person plural is the only plural pronoun with two forms (in some dialects) - "y'all" and "you"; and 2) the second person pronoun has the same form in nominative and accusative. The combination of 1) and 2) is why "Y'all have the craziest stuff happen to you" is acceptable. In this sentence, "Y'all" is the plural nominative, which means that it requires a plural accusative - "you". In your sentence "They have the craziest stuff happen to *him", the plural nominative pronoun ("They") also requires a plural accusative. It just so happens that in modern English, "you" and "ya'll" are the same form for both nominative and accusative, while "they" and "them" are different.
Incidentally, this is not a "y'all"-specific phenomenon. It works in the singular form, as well. So you can have "You (singular) have the craziest stuff happen to you", but you can't have "He has the craziest stuff happen to *them". It's a question of agreement, that looks more complicated because of the abundance of uses of the form "you". My edit to that section hinted at that, but I could flesh it out if it makes more sense. Anyhow, that's where I was coming from. Thanks for asking me about it. Let me know what you think - and if you'd mind if I redid my edits. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I appreciate your comments. Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you. I see you've made changes already, but here is what I was thinking anyway:
I propose that I add some additional sentences to try to show relevance of SNL/Chesterton material. I want to say that we should take into account any existence of "you all", "y'all", and/or "ye aw" in Britain, past and present, with special emphasis on Scotland.
Your two points (1) and (2) are both correct of course. But it's not just that we have 2 forms, but their distribution that invites attention; if one form seems to be behaving as some kind of emphatic of the other, then it's not just a simple case of synonymy as per "small" and "little", but rather a case of patterned variation. Is this similar to pronoun-dropping that occurs in languages like Spanish (the subject pronoun is present largely for emphasis, but tends to be absent otherwise), which have grammatical person shown in the verb-ending? Is it like optional plurals or collectives which may be added in Mvskoke (Creek Indian), only when lack of context makes them necessary? Is it along the lines of auxiliary "do" in English, which we use for the negative, the yes/no question, the emphatic, topicalization, and the short answer, but not for the declarative?
I don't have the answers to these relatively theoretical questions. Of course, your move of this material to "usage" makes sense if we're not considering theory, but usage, which also needs to be covered. At this point, I propose we put a short entry under "usage" noting that "y'all" can be replaced by "you" within a context, and directing the reader to see the other section for more specific details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PN, MA Ling (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you pose interesting questions about the nature of "y'all". The problem is, as you point out, you and I don't have the answers at the moment. And Wikipedia isn't the place to pose questions or postulate on answers. Our task is merely to survey and report. Thus the WP:OR rule against posting original research. I'd love to read a journal article by you about these issues (and I might even use it as a source in WP!), but WP is not the forum to post your ideas.
Of course, if there are sources out there already that talk about these things, use them. Until then, I think it's better to leave the "you/y'all" material in the Usage section. Sourcing is also important with the British material. If you have sources that talk about the historic or continuing relationship with British English and "y'all", put them in, and use SNL and Chesterton as examples. But just using the quotes without context is unhelpful, and original research can't be used for the context. So I'd also ask that you leave those out for now. There is plenty of research out there about "y'all" already - we should be able to make this a better article by finding and using it. I hope that makes sense. Dohn joe (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn Joe: I actually wasn't aware of this rule against original material -- I _thought_ I had read the ground-rules, but I guess I didn't read them thoroughly enough. No, this seems like a good rule if we are to make Wikipedia the most reliable and authoritative it can be; I just didn't realize its existence, perhaps partly because (it appears to me) so many others are not following it, though that's not an excuse for me to do it. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. PN, MA Ling (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I could tell you were making good-faith edits and contributions. And I agree that not everyone follows (or knows) the rules. All we can do is take each article and do our best. Happy editing! Dohn joe (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Burrito article
Per our previous discussion, are you going to help cleanup and verify your contributions to the burrito article? Since you have an interest in the history, perhaps you could also help take the most important data points from the timeline article and merge them as prose into the history section. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your lead and moved much of the "Varieties" material to the talk page. There were a lot of blogs, dead links, and other questionable sources (including a student restaurant guide at Northwestern University - twice?!), and a lot of flat out unsourced stuff. I'll try to work on getting it all back in, in a better form. Dohn joe (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, you did not. You made a POINTY edit removing OTHERSTUFF after I removed your contributions to the talk page. Please fix your work and leave the other material alone. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in your attempts to positively contribute in good faith content on the Burrito article. Especially the stuff regarding the San Diego Style Burrito, and expanded content on the California Burrito. In the past user Viriditas has unilaterally removed material claiming that the sources provided don't pass WP:RS. My impression, and thus only my opinion, has been that he has come very close to WP:OWN and not following WP:CIVIL. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest, RightCow. The burrito article was actually the very first edit I made on WP, last May. If you follow the edit history, I think the back-and-forth between me and Viriditas last November helped to strengthen the article. I agree that he has seemed a little possessive regarding certain things, but now at least the San Diego/California burrito stuff seems removal-proof. It's a difficult article to source, as there aren't many articles about burritos. But I'll keep trying. And any help is appreciated.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't agree. English-written books about Brazilian history (and even Latin America) use the name "Cisplatine War" and "Paraguayan War" (such as in this biograph about Pedro II: [1]). What would be considered confuse was to someone who is reading a book about Brazilian history and see names such as "Argentina-Brazil War" and "War of the Triple Alliance" in here, and not the ones used by historians. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCGN - last resort?
Initial indications are that neither your idea for mediation nor my idea to identify broad principles is going to be accepted. As I look through the various options at WP:Dispute resolution, I don't see any choices left... besides the last resort. I've never done that, though in retrospect it makes sense since I know the similar TV episode naming disagreement was decided by arbitration a few years ago. Might be time to review how to go through all that, eh? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, I expanded this article and added references. I also expanded the definition of the geographic area. As far as I have always heard, the term describes BOTH sides of Catalina. Are you OK with that, or should I seek references? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you would like to create an article about the Rosecroft Gardens - I see you wikilinked it - you can be assured that it would pass muster as notable, because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places which gives it automatic notability. I added a second source about Rosecroft, plus I am very familiar with the site (I'm old enough to remember when you could visit it - it was even a stop on the tourist-bus rounds). It turns out that the gardens were originally part of the grounds of the founder's mansion (which still stands); he was also the founding president of the San Diego Floral Association. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I mind? I think your additions are great. I put Catalina and Gage as the boundaries because that's what's in the community plan (pp. 15-17). And as someone who's also very familiar with the area, I was never sure what to call the couple of blocks between PLNC and Catalina. The community plan puts it in Sunset Cliffs, which seems wrong. But to me at least, it's not the Wooded Area proper either. (Although apparently the SDPD puts both those blocks and the college in the Wooded Area. Hmm....) What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding and usage is in line with the Police map, that the Wooded Area is the hilltop area on both sides of Catalina, as far north as Talbot St. and Hill Street. (The police map extends south onto the federal land all the way to the end of the point, which is probably just a convenience for them since nobody would consider those areas to be part of the Wooded Area.) The Theosophical Grounds/PLNU seem to me to be an inherent part of the Wooded Area, in fact the "woodsy" quality of the area is pretty much due to them, and Theosophical buildings and influences are found on both sides of Catalina. It could well be hard to define this area, since for a long time "Wooded Area" was an informal name mainly used by Realtors. I had a link to the PLOBRA neighborhood map in the Point Loma, San Diego article, which showed the Realtor's understanding of Point Loma neighborhoods, but there is no longer a map at that link and now I can't find it online. I'll have to delete the link. It seems to me that map listed the section west of Catalina as the "College Area" - a term I have personally never heard for that area. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the map here, using the Wayback Machine - do you know about that? I recently found out about it, and it's fantastic - you can go back and actually look at archived versions of web addresses. Feel free to update the link in the PL page.
As for the definition of the Wooded Area, I think it has expanded somewhat. Talking to my folks (one of whom is a PL real estate agent, and one of whom lived off of Silvergate in the 50s and 60s), they both thought the boundaries were Talbot, Catalina, and Gage, and they both used "College Area" when I asked them what was west of Catalina, although my mom suggested that the definition of the "Wooded Area" had been expanding over the last 20 years. Anyhow, that's all original research, but backed up by the Peninsula Community Plan map and the real estate link you had. Is there a non-OR way to suggest the expanding boundaries? Dohn joe (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fit in the "College Area" term. (I doubt if that is used outside of Point Loma; most San Diegans would think "College Area" referred to UCSD, SDSU, or USD.) Your parents thought the Wooded Area ended at Gage? What would they call the uphill slope east of Gage - streets like Loma Valley Rd. and Bangor St.? --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the link, I replaced it! --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also usually associate "College Area" with SDSU (as does Wikipedia). My dad thought that La Playa started on the other side of Gage. Either that, or it was just generic "Pt. Loma", without its own specific neighborhood. Dohn joe (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think an article on the Rosecroft Gardens would be great. The founder looks like he was an interesting guy, too; lured to PL by the Theosophists, and an amateur horticulturalist who invented the lath house famously employed in Balboa Park. We'll see how motivated I get on this one. :) Dohn joe (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History of U.S. city naming
I've been digging through the archives and have assembled the following notes, so far, about how the guideline came to be. Thought you might be interested.
Just saw your following note: [2]. Wouldn't it be a good solution to ask that no WikiProjectArmenia and WikiProjectAzerbaijan members take part in the discussion for a while? --Ashot(talk)08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dohn Joe. I would like to know what you think on reopening the discussion (at least with enforcement of non-participation of potentially biased parties). Thanks. --Ashot(talk)07:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I definitely think it's an important discussion to have. It still might be a little soon to reopen it, though. You're certainly welcome to start it up again, but I'll probably not jump in right away. Maybe I'll revisit it in a couple of months (assuming no major de jure/de facto disuptes have flared up in the interim, as I think this is a topic best debated when partisanship is low). Let me know if there are any developments. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, this type of discussions will always be a matter of partisanship. I'd reopen the discussion, but I think it would be more legitimate if a more unattached editor does this.
Can there be another solution like topic ban for parties with vested interest in the subject? Otherwise "partisanship" will always win. --Ashot(talk)14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right that the "San Diego Bay Area" article should probably be deleted. The term just doesn't seem to be in general use, in the sense described in the article. As you saw I challenged its premise on the Talk page, but I thought I would give it a few days for discussion rather than nominating it immediately. The discussion is not supporting the concept so I think it should go.
I don't think it's appropriate for a "prod" (the "proposed deletion" process where there is no discussion), I think it should go through an "articles for deletion" discussion. I am out of town right now so I thought I would nominate it when I get back, giving "unverified" as the basic reason. If you want to nominate it in the meantime go ahead; the process is kind of cumbersome but it is well explained at WP:AFD. Could be a learning experience for you! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Melanie. I didn't get around to it today, but I might give it a shot tomorrow. (Of course, you can still feel free - I'm sure I'll get my "learning experience" at some point.) :) Dohn joe (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well done nomination! Just one other thing, you should notify OBSanDiego on his/her talk page. I'll join in the discussion when I get back to my computer. It's hard to post from my iPhone! --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed your new redirect from Vallecitos to Vallecitos, Califonria while working through a list of broken redirects. Generally I'd delete it (CSD G8), but if you're going to be creating the latter article (looks like you do quite a bit of work in SD-area geography), I'd be glad to hold off, just let me know. Can't promise someone else won't G8 it in the meantime, of course. Have a great week! --joe deckertalk to me22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, go ahead. I may or not get around to creating it, and if I do, I can always re-do the redirects. Thanks for asking, though! Dohn joe (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages
Hi there, no there is nothing that you need to fix :) The reason that I and the other editor placed the template there is because that template goes on all disambiguation pages, which Mountain Empire (disambiguation) clearly is. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the page or that something needs to be fixed, it is simply there to show that it is not an "article", but a disambiguation page. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alto Adige/South Tyrol
Thanks for making that edit. It isn't fun being outnumbered and demonized by the German speaking crowd on here. I'm still in the opinion that both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are used very commonly in English. Mai-Sachme's book search is a good data point, but my impression still is that usage is about 50/50. The thing that is so frusterating, is a lot of these editors who are not English speakers come here from the region and have an obvious political/ethnic bias to their opinions. I know we should assume good faith, but reading what Sajoch says on his talk page sums up the attitude that a majority of the German speaking editors have. I don't want to slam them for that, I think a lot if it is natural due to cultural sensitivities, but it is there -- and it really shouldn't have a place on English Wikipedia. Of course this isn't the only page that gets caught in this lingual/ethnic warfare.. -sigh- Anyway, take it easy. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to check out some data I posted to the page that shows Alto Adige is also commonly used in English. Basically it fits, because by far the English usage when describing the combined region is Trentino-Alto Adige. At one time, the same person who is requesting this move forcibly and unilaterally changed Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol. This helped ignite years of arguments. It is clear though why he would want to do that. The folks who want South Tyrol to dominate English usage and want to erase Alto Adige have a marketing problem when the term Trentino-Alto Adige is most commonly used. It is always and completely a political and ethnic fight that has been brought into Wikipedia. In my opinion we should ask a few English speaking administrators to come in and evaluate the data for all three pages and settle it once and for all. Having Italian speakers or German speakers with their cultural baggage makes it unfortunately impossible to 'assume good faith'. I'd for one be open for independent folks to come in and settle things.. and what they choose, fine. I don't expect those people voting for this move to promote this idea -- maybe you can. I'm tired of the nastiness and the ganging up these people do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your question
hi there Dohn joe,
thank you for your message. Please read through all the reasons given in the last discussions and polls here [3]. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me again. Gryffindor (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dohn joe. Yes, I think I gave an argument back then, that even though policy stipulates that we should use the most common name, the guideline says it should be in English Wikipedia:NCGN#Use_English. Surely you will agree with me, that the name "Trentino-South Tyrol" is more English than "Trentino-Alto Adige"? The policy of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming also comes into play here on top of that. This is something that the Italian state recognised and accordingly the name in the constitution was given to be more neutral and accompanying to the minorities in that region, thus "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol". Gryffindor (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bolding
hi there Dohn joe,
concerning the bolding issue, the area has more than just one Italian name, such as Sudtirolo. All the different names are explained in the "Name" section. If you insist on keeping the AA name in the intro, it should be italicised: "Foreign language
Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology. However, some foreign terms should be italicized. These cases are described in the Manual of Style for text formatting." Although the word AA is used in English, it clearly is not English, and thus should be left in italics. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gryffindor. I think the main issue we're having is that even though "Alto Adige" is an Italian term, it is also widely used in English. Lots of people who go to the South Tyrol page will be looking for "Alto Adige", and we should make it clear that it's the same place. The easiest way to do that is with bolding. As I wrote on the talk page, I think the manual of style and the bolding guideline both back me up on that. Thanks for discussing it - and if you still disagree (and nobody else chimes in), would you be up for a third opinion? Dohn joe (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topic
Well I think it could be worth a try although I suspect it may be best to start with the case where one has a natural disambiguation and the other doesn't as otherwise I think the whole idea may get shot down on how we decide which one should go at the base name. If that gets accepted and seems to be working then we could think about trying to expand it. Dpmuk (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to provide more specific objections to any particular guideline change you revert. Simply noting that the change has lacked consensus support in the past, as you did here [4], is a very weak and poor justification for reverting. It's sufficient, especially for a guideline page, but definitely on the weak end. The point is, do you object, and, if so, why? That should be the basis of a revert, not a hollow reference to a lack of consensus support. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me one instance in that talk section where anyone besides you and Patavium discuss using Ladin names in Trentino. Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sounds really interesting, I'll have to see to get it somewhere. But since I had to pay 2€ at the National Library to get a view into the article of Heiss, I wanted to ask you something, before it falls into oblivion: Does the book also source the "increasingly"? Because that's why I needed Heiss. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the book, so you should be able to see it now, but yes, it says that Sudtirolo is becoming more common in vernacular and printed Italian. Dohn joe (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I don't see what's hard to understand. Dividing Aircraft into the enormous subset of Airplanes and the tiny subset of Unpowered Aircraft seems exactly like dividing Cat into Siamese Cats and Unsiamese Cats: lopsided. A useful classification of cats would be into roughly equal groups: Abyssinians, Persians, Siamese, Manx, mixed-breeds, coon cats, and so on. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the assorted others might be; but let us take that as a basis for discussion. The point is that that division is not level, and so not economical; a paraglider is one kind of thing, an airplane can be many kinds of things: biplanes, jets, rocket-driven fighters, and so on. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your message
Hi Dohn joe, thank you very much you're welcome. I hope it helps explain the provenience of the name a little bit and sheds some new light. I have reverted the article back to the original name Haut-Adige, because I would like to give other editors the chance as well to participate, I hope you understand. I would say give it a couple of weeks. Once other users have also seen it, we can revisit the issue about keeping it or renaming it to "Alto Adige", either way I am open. Gryffindor (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pennsylvania townships
I realize that category talk pages are not the usual place for discussions, but I think this is the best place for this discussion. It covers all of the townships in Pennsylvania. There has been much discussion lately about how township names in Pennsylvania should be titled. Some go for X Township, Pennsylvania. Others want X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania. Of course there are many Washington Townships in Pennsylvania so they and others like it will need to include the county name in the title. The townships in question are the unique ones like Horton Township and Plunketts Creek Township. I think it is best to limit this discussion to Pennsylvania. If other wikiprojects want to do it differently that is fine. The status of townships vary greatly from state to state.
Thanks for letting me know. Everything looks okay, and I like what you've done with the page. The bot doesn't generally edit the Requested moves page in any case, except to add or remove that backlog template, and from what I can see that shouldn't be impacted by your restructure. Hard Boiled Eggs[talk]01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Everyone here" comment is trying to INFLUENCE the vote. At Wikipedia:Canvassing It clearly states "...(however) canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour." Please strike your comment or be reported. Mugginsx (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just expressing an opinion, which people are free to accept, ignore, or investigate on their own - which isn't canvassing. Canvassing would be if I went around to other editors on the sly, that I thought would support my position, and told them about the discussion without telling other people. I try to be very open about my participation in WP discussions - please check my record, and I hope you'd agree. Dohn joe (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bull, just strike it all and comment to the editor all you want on his or her talk page. I am in the middle of a complaint. If you do not strike it I will finish it. I will wait awhile. Mugginsx (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, go ahead. I responded over at the James I of England talkpage. If you're not happy with my actions, you're free to report them - but I really don't think I've done anything blameworthy. Dohn joe (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Alot of people are working hard to get an a FAIR vote. Your remarks are totally inappropriate and you very well know that, even after you "fixed it up". We'll see. Mugginsx (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my complaint was that you two were working together to disrupt the vote. Thank you for again proving my point. Have a nice day. Mugginsx (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caps
Dohn, I didn't understand your re-capitalizastion at Fallacies of Distributed Computing. I was thinking of moving it back, but if you think it's controversial, I'll do an RM instead. Why do you think it's a proper name? If the article is about a titled document, we should fix it to say so. Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly looking at how sources treat it, and it seems like a large majority treat it as a proper name - often putting it in single or double quotes: "We're here to discuss the 'Fallacies of Distributed Computing'" - things like that. Here's what I found at Google Books: [7]. If you still think it should be lowercase, I think an RM would be a good way to go. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that, too. I saw 5 of the first 10 book hits using lower case, and the others mostly just using it as a title or heading (you have to actually click on the book to see, sometimes, since Google tends to prefer titles and headings in snippets). That's at least enough evidence that capitalization is not necessary, in which case MOS:CAPS says not to capitalize. I'll do an RM if you're not convinced. (by the way, Tom Lyon is my brother, and I've worked with (or near) Deutsch and Gosling) Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We may have been looking differently at the Google Books results - I certainly found much more than half using uppercase. (There were some that used both.) I'm still in favor of the caps approach here, as you'll see at the RM talkpage. (And, by the way, thanks for the optical mouse - I always hated cleaning out the gunk from the bottoms of mouses.) Dohn joe (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting schools
Per your PROD comment at Warren Middle School — if you read the A7 speedy deletion template, you'll note the following line: "Note that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible under this criterion." There's enough debate about schools, and schools are generally important enough, that their deletion is generally controversial: A7 speedy is for obvious cases. PROD is a good way to go about deleting this page; you'll see that I support your action. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry, but calling this simply Passmore Edwards Public Library is also misleading because P.E. endowed several libraries, as his article shows: leaving it at this title would give the impression that this was the only one. Will you revert or shall I? —SMALLJIM23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that he endowed many libraries. Are any of them also known as "Passmore Edwards Public Library"? If so, do any of them have an article on WP? If not, and this is the only WP article by this name, then there's no need to disambiguate. See WP:Article titles for guidance. Dohn joe (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're all known in their own towns as "Passmore Edwards Public Library" or "Passmore Edwards Free Library" or similar. A quick Google will confirm that there are many instances. So if I lived in Falmouth, Cornwall, for instance, and searched for my library, I'd get the wrong article - better no article, I think. Is that good enough to persuade you? —SMALLJIM23:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me ask you this: is there an alternative way to disambiguate? Going to the Passmore Edwards website, I see that this library is variously referred to as "Hammersmith (Uxbridge Road) Library", "Passmore Edwards Free Library, Hammersmith", and "Hammersmith Free Library". Are any of those common enough to use as the article title? If not, are you in a position to create a list of all the buildings known as "Passmore Edwards Public Library"? If so, we should make Passmore Edwards Public Library a set index page. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough I was thinking along those lines myself. I've no objection to some other name. Making Passmore Edwards Public Library a list page (with a lot of redlinks) would be a possibility - I don't think the Hammersmith one is more notable than others, and they're probably all listed buildings.
I think that sounds pretty reasonable. Feel free to go ahead with that plan. Thanks for working together on this - a good example of wiki-collaboration! Dohn joe (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- I see you are moving articles from "articlename (city, state)" to "articlename (city)". There's a fairly strong precedent for not doing so. Are you aware of it? I'm happy to research and link to the guidelines if you aren't aware of it. In either case, please stop moving articles. tedder (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The school guidelines are never official, but here's the recommendation. The rest of it is implied at WP:NCDAB. In other words, to follow the NCGN for a disambiguation. Yes, dabbing to state-only is okay- so the options are no dab, state, or city+state. The last option is only needed if there are several in the same state with the same name. (yes, it happens, even outside of CA/NY). tedder (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. Let me ask you this - do we (or should we) care about consistency between U.S. and non-U.S. schools? Like I said, at the Salesian College page, the non-U.S. schools disambiguate with just the name of the town (even when the town name itself is ambiguous). Dohn joe (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Spider Bones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scribner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Dohn, technical requests at WP:RM is not a place to invoke WP:BRD. Read what it says there: "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just following the advice at WP:RM#Requesting technical moves, where it says: "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not required, and may not always be possible) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.)" Since I'm not an admin, I couldn't revert those moves, so I asked an admin to do it on behalf as part of BRD. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Didn't take the time to read through what I should have. I just saw what looked like a silly dab (K Street (street)), and tried to "fix" it. Accept my apologies. Dohn joe (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The name 'Brunsvik', derived from the German 'Braunschweig', is also spelled 'Brunßwick' or 'Brunswick' in German, 'Brunšvik' in Czech/Slovakian, and 'Brunszvik' in Hungarian (see Steblin 2009, p. 91)." in: John E Klapproth: Beethoven’s Only Beloved: Josephine!, CreateSpace, Charleston, SC, 2011. [8][9]
They called themselves "Brunsvik" (and they spoke German and French, hardly Hungarian). John E Klapproth (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I didn't replace "Brunsvik" with "Brunswick". It's important to include the latter, however, since that's how the family is often known - in English-langauge sources. Dohn joe (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I undid your tagging the redirect Holy Cross High School (New Orleans) for speedy deletion. Nothing wrong with having redirects. Your comment about a "move" suggest you might have had something to do with moving a title in mind; if so, you might wish to bring such a proposal up on the talk page of the relevant article. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I nowikied your code for the db-whatever template, as without it the template activated and put Infrogmation's page in the category for speedy deletion. A short cut for this is the W in a barred circle on the tool bar above these typing boxes. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this idea? Right now Aeroplane and Airplane both redirect to Fixed-wing aircraft. Of course, as you noted, that's problematic because nto all Fixed-wing aircraft are airplanes (namely Gliders are not).
So why not simply develop an Airplane article in user space, and, when it's ready for prime time, just copy/paste the text onto Airplane (or Aeroplane if you're not American), overwriting the redirect, and changing Aeroplane to redirect to the new [{Airplane]] article? The other articles would need some tweaks, but overall it should take care of the problem, don't you think? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'd thought about that, and it's not a bad idea. The reason I went the move request route was to see if we could get consensus, mainly on the scope issue. The naming issue has blinded people over the years to the fact that the current title either 1) leaves us without an article on the aero/airplane, which I think is ludicrous for an encyclopedia, or 2) leaves us with an article title which doesn't match the scope of the article - also not acceptable. So if we get consensus on the scope issue, then hopefully we can work out the naming issue. The other reason for going this way is to preserve the history. I know that the current history could stay with Fixed-wing aircraft - it wouldn't disappear - but since that article has been the "stand-in" article about planes, it might be better and less messy to keep the history and new title together.
So if the move goes through, then Fixed-wing aircraft becomes a redirect to Aeroplane (or whatever it's called). But we could take the current article content, pare it down, and create a new stream-lined Fixed-wing aircraft that covers planes and gliders, primarily focusing on what they have in common (physics and some history... anything else?), with WP:SUMMARY sections on both, and links to the full-blown articles. In other words, this move doesn't mean losing the Fixed-wing aircraft article. I think some who are opposed are thinking it does. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Create an Airplane article on top of the current redirect, heavily basing content on what is currently at Fixed-wing aircraft, but taking out unpowered content, etc.
Hi DJ. I had not noticed your question to me at the RM for Strange Sensation, which has now been closed. I do like to answer questions! In fact I had already written this: "In fact, Strange sensation ought to be [a] DAB page that includes all articles listed above, and more." So your question had already been answered when you asked it, unless you meant the capped version. That, plainly, ought to have redirected to the proposed DAB page bearing the uncapped title. Readers do not typically distinguish by capitalisation, as we who are so close to Wikipedian ways might. Anyway, it's all finished now. Best wishes NoeticaTea?21:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noetica. I was talking about the capped version, actually, so thanks for answering that. If you don't mind answering another moot question, try this: Assume your suggestion had been implemented, and Strange Sensation were redirected to a dab page at Strange sensation, which would house links to the songs and Robert Plant band along with the various other things you mentioned that have been described as "strange sensations" - Itch, Paresthesia, etc. Paying attention to the latter group in particular, couldn't they also be described as "weird sensations", "odd sensations", "funny sensations", or "funny feelings"? Should we create dab pages for Weird sensation, Odd sensation, etc. and populate them with Itch and Paresthesia, as well? I'd love to have your answer and rationale at your leisure. Dohn joe (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange is more encyclopedic and likely as a search term than weird, odd, and funny, perhaps. But if not, and if there were a DAB page of the sort I had envisaged, redirects to it from Weird sensation and the like could easily be supplied, whenever editors discover a need. Opportunities for redirects are virtually limitless, and they do no harm. Many redirects, one DAB page. NoeticaTea?00:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand immediately. Well, sometimes we don't see a need for a page (especially a DAB page) until the matter comes up incidentally in the course of another discussion. That's what happened at the RM, right? Like many in the public eye, the band used "strange sensation" (and capped it) because it was a common enough phrase. Compare novelists who get a free ride by coopting well-known phrases, sometimes with a twist of syntax or sense ("Far From the Madding Crowd's ignoble strife"), or by stealing an existing title (Lemprière's Dictionary: a very useful dictionary for classical antiquity that I consult often enough, but also a novel!). So with "strange sensation": we are strangely alerted to a strangely useful potential DAB page. Will I start one? Nah. Would I add entries to one? Yep.
This can be a Gray area, can't it? But let's return to the color scheme later. First, as I understand your concern, in cases where an article title is also a "common enough phrase", we should take a reader's likely search habits into consideration when we decide whether or not to include a disambiguator. Am I right so far? Am I also right that you would agree that there are some "common enough phrases" that can be used as article titles without disambiguation? Returning to the color theme, I can think of White House and Red Cross as examples of common phrases that nevertheless should point directly (and do) to articles (the latter as a redirect).
On the other side of the spectrum, I could see phrases that are potentially generic, but so unlikely to be used as a search term that an article title might freely use it: Green Day, or Blue Oyster Cult, for example. These also do not seem to require disambiguation, correct? Or am I guessing wrong? Does their very inscrutability as phrases mean that we need to show that we're not talking about an oddly-colored day or some weird religion?
In any event, that leaves us with run-of-the-mill phrases like "strange sensation" that have been coopted. Is it only the latter category that concerns you, or would you also add qualifiers to any of my colorful examples? Dohn joe (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, DJ. Other concerns have taken priority.
First, I am not happy to call them "disambiguators", which plays into a whole lot of politics. It invites such strange confections as "predisambiguation" – as if being prudently precise were tantamount to "apprehended violence". No, these are qualifiers. They are not a move in a private game for Wikipedia editors with opposing views about recognisability, precision, conciseness, or (heaven help us all) "primary topics".
Second, yes: we should take into account readers' likely search habits. This is done very little in determining titles, but I think it should be a central concern. These are matters of linguistics and cognitive psychology, of great interest to me. When a computer-science driven algorithm all but supplants such human considerations, you get a broken system.
Third, yes of course: some phrases are so common that invoking them as counterexamples is an easily discoverable straw man. There is nothing wrong with White House, or Oval Office, or Red Cross.
Fourth, yes: some cases are difficult. That's why we have RMs. Ivy Day is an interesting example (see the subsection "Other uses").
I hope that clarifies my position. Much as I would like to discuss this further, I think other matters will continue to demand my time and energy. Would you be content to leave it at that for a while?
Please STOP these inappropriate and undiscussed page moves. Now I will have to get all (or most) of them reverted. What a nuisance. A move like your last one [10] shows you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject area, as the British Library has literally hundreds of notable gospel books, and several dozen have articles. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the British Library has dozens and dozens of gospel books. The new title would be a touch ambiguous, wouldn't it? If you have a better idea for a title that follows our naming conventions, please be my guest. How about "Egerton 768", which is what the library itself calls it? I had come across a category list with some pretty poor titles, and I would object to simply reverting any of them. Perhaps we can work together on improving the lot? Dohn joe (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existing scheme has some slight inconsistencies, but is generally fine, and reflects standard scholarly convention. It has been in place here for many years without problems. I looked at all your changes, and none were improvements. If you want to change some manuscript titles, try the appalling Category:Greek New Testament minuscules (ie gospel books) or Category:Greek New Testament lectionaries, etc, where I'd be happy to discuss a better scheme. How would a move to the pure catalogue number go with your expressed view that "WP is aimed at a general, not a specialist, audience, and titles that don't read as catalog entries is part of that"? Your moves were exactly in the wrong direction; we should be adding information to titles like Minuscule 117 and Harley 1775, not removing it. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you're saying about how my expressed view could appear to be at odds with pure catalogue numbers as titles. My concern, though, is not with what something is called - it can be completely opaque jargon - but that whatever it's called, that's what we use as the WP article title. If something has a name, whether it's Minuscule 117, Sd.Kfz. 251, or Aframomum melegueta, then we should use it. If something has multiple names, then we decide which one best fits our purposes and guidelines. When I see an articled titled [[X]], then I assume that there's something out there called "X". And presumably I have some reason to look it up, so I'll either have come across the name before, or I can quickly figure out what it's about by reading the first couple of lines of the article.
The problem I was having with most of the titles I moved today is that they were non-names being used as titles. There's nothing called "Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care", which was the previous title of one article I moved. There's a manuscript of a writing called "Pastoral Care" by Gregory the Great, which happens to be at the Troyes Bibliotheque Municipale, and which has been assigned the number 504. So for me, the catalogue issue is more about formatting or style. The author, location, number, etc. can all be used to disambiguate, but they shouldn't be part of the title itself, unless that's what they're called. So that's why I think "Harley 1775" is acceptable as a title, while "Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care" is not.
No, I'm afraid not. The conventions we mostly use reflect the standard way of referring to MS, or one of them, but using brackets in a WP fashion. We aim to reflect how a book would be referred to, not in a catalogue of that library, but in a reference to the book in a scholarly context, which reflects the fundamental naming policy WP:COMMONNAME. Obviously where a book is famous enough to have a really widely-used name like Book of Kells, we just use that. Referring to everything by a number alone is clearly unhelpful even to scholars. Obviously internally the British Library does not keep adding "British Library", but we have to. What is wrong with "Minuscule 117" is that it is actually Greek Gospel book (British Library, Harley 5731), although Minuscule 117 is its name in one of the standard global catalogues of such books. Your names were all just useless, mainly because they assumed eg the BL has only one MS of Pastoral Care or Moralia in Job. They should all be reverted before we continue discussing this. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My actual assumption was that there was only one WP article on a Troyes library Pastoral Care manuscript. It also assumed that the title of the manuscript (as opposed to the original writing itself) is "Pastoral Care". My concern, again, was that we were using citations as WP titles, as opposed to what they would be called in running text, or in titles where the work is named. I do see that some of the formats I changed are used in running text, as here. Let me ask you this: in "Greek Gospel book (British Library, Harley 5731)", is "Greek Gospel book" actually part of the title of the manuscript, or is it simply a description or category? If it's the latter, why would it be in a WP article title at all? (Or at least why wouldn't it be reversed, with "BL, Harley 5731" as the title, and "Greek Gospel book" in parentheses?) Just trying to get a handle on the situation.... Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Manuscripts don't generally have "titles" contemporary to their creation in the modern sense. There is no particular reason why we should not use a different order among the elements, except that this is not the convention we have been using for the last several years, and that it would make more sort codes necessary. But the number of articles affected runs well into 4 figures, & drive-by edits of a handful are not the way to proceed. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I had simply come across a category page that seemed very inconsistent - both within itself, and with broader WP titling principles. So I tried to fix it. I should've known it wouldn't have been that simple. As for "title of the manuscript", I just mean the title that we have given it, not what some 8th-century Frankish monk would have called it. It can be "Book of Kells", or it can be "British Library, Harley 5731", but whatever best identifies it under our guidelines is what we should try to use. Dohn joe (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose starting over. I don't object to reversing my moves (except Leiden Aratea - that one seems to be justified), and perhaps starting a discussion about manuscript article titles. Any thoughts on venues for that discussion? Dohn joe (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can accept Leiden Aratea. There are few editors still writing on such matters but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts or possibly Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BL (British Library collaboration). But to my mind the outstanding examples of wrong titles are those 1,500 odd Greek uncials, miniscules & lectionaries, & who is going to tackle those? Or talk at WP:VAMOS, where a new section covering illuminated MS could be added. I'm not sure the Books project would be any help, but they should be notified. I've complained to their creator in the past with no real response. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; most of the articles you moved were started by Dmsgold, as indeed were most illuminated MS articles. Sadly he edits little now. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat belated, but I moved all the pages except Leiden Aratea to their previous titles. I still hope to revisit the convention at some point, but for now stability would seem the prudent way to go. Dohn joe (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Common renderings"
Hi, I paste in your message to me to give User:Volunteer Marek whom I've cc-ed in by note on his Talk page context:
Hello In ictu oculi -
First, I'd like to say that I don't consider myself a fanatic in the intractable WP diacritics debate. I have both added and removed diacritics on occasion, depending on the situation. So, with that as a preface:
A few days ago, you reverted a few instances where I had added a common rendering of a name to an intro, citing WP:FULLNAME and WP:OPENPARA. I'm not sure how those apply to that issue, so if you could explain, that would be great.
Also, I'd like to hear from you why you think removing a single early instance of a rendering that is seen in the vast majority of English-language sources improves the encyclopedia. Someone who has only ever seen the rendering "Walesa" (for example) may be slightly disoriented or uncertain when they see "Wałęsa". Adding "Walesa" to the first sentence immediately reinforces that the reader is at the correct article, and the rest of the article can then go on to use whichever rendering has been chosen. Isn't that a benefit to the reader? No information has been lost, and some helpful information has been added. What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the counts of section 2.3.5, such cases as Lodz and Malaga (as variants of Lodz and Malaga) will not be counted as full exonyms, because the data was for methodological reasons set around 1967, at a time before text processing made diacritics easier to produce in print... Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names. Approaches towards the Resolution of an Apparent Contradiction. Peter Jordan, Milan Orožen Adamič, Paul Woodman - 2007 Page 22
The edits you made are highly unusual in en.wikipedia as Volunteer Marek's edit summary states. The only other cases I'm familiar of someone doing this are another user recently made similar lede changes to several articles such as François Mitterrand, but also US lawyer Zoë Baird. Another controverted case is Saša Hiršzon. Those are controversial lede edits not in line with WP:OPENPARA. To justify such an inclusion would require a special case such as (i) change of nationality, (ii) WP:STAGENAME, (iii) monarch, (iv) a consonant generally not rendered, particularly ß. These cases (i-ii-iii-iv) are effectively English exonyms for foreign people. There is no case of (v) "commonly known in low-MOS newspapers which drop accents outside Latin-1 character set."
One other comment, you say "intractable WP diacritics debate" - how many articles are there on en.wikipedia which don't have diacritics in lede, article body and title? Lede - I would say zero. Article body - varies but generally yes. Title - I estimate of 10-20% of en.wikipedia's 3,900,000 articles, that is to say 390,000 articles should/could have European accents or carons, and 389,900 do - the remaining 100 are predominantly Czech and Slovak ice-hockey stubs created with history-edit-redirects to prevent moves to Czech and Slovak spelling. So I do not agree that there is an "intractable WP diacritics debate", there is in fact broad consensus on use of accents and carons in ledes, article body and titles. Again, you're welcome to try and find an article with a lede such as you have edited, beyond the Saša Hiršzon example above. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, In ictu (let me know if you have a more preferred abbreviation). I really do agree with much of what you posted. Do you see my point about reader-friendliness, though? If 90% of English-language sources use "Walesa", then that is the visual cue that the readers of this encyclopedia associate with the subject. "Wałęsa" might not be recognized immediately, redirects notwithstanding. Why risk alienating people if we can confirm - once - the rendering they are familiar with? Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no sorry that doesn't make sense. It's a big world out there and people will have to face Polish accents if they want to read encyclopedia articles on Polish presidents. As Volunteer Marek said, inputting Walesa will go straight there in WP or Google. Besides, en.wikipedia has already agreed on this, hence WP:OPENPARA. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that we wipe WP clean of Polish accents. I'm saying that including one instance of a rendering that our readership is most likely to have encountered improves the accessibility of the encyclopedia. Consider it this way: even a speaker of a language that doesn't typically use diacritical marks will know that using diacritics has an effect on a word. If you see pina and piña side by side, you assume there is a difference in meaning. And there is - in Spanish, pina means conical mound, and piña means pineapple. Likewise, someone encountering "Wałęsa" for the first time might well assume that it and "Walesa" refer to different people, or that "Lodz" and "Łódź" are different places. Three words - "commonly rendered Lodz" - solves that issue, does it not?
And this is not just for English speakers. Isn't it useful for a native Polish speaker to know that in English, "Łódź" is often rendered as "Lodz"? Dohn joe (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the point isn't it, why one instance? We could legitimately add ledes like Charlotte Brontë (known as "Charlotte Bronte" in tabloid sources) or Zoë Baird (Zoe Baird) etc. to 100,000s of articles on en.wp. But we don't because it would be silly. Polish readers are already aware that tabloid English sources don't spell Polish accents. But sources which can do. "Łódź" doesn't have an exonym form Lodz, see Lonely Planet Central Europe - Page 386 Lisa Dunford - 2009 "The region has long been a base for industry, the traditional mainstay of Poland's second largest city, Łódź." Wikipedia doesn't do this. If you want it to do so then go to WP:OPENPARA and seek a change in en.wp's OPENPARA guidelines. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case...
I see that you are active in a number of other language Wikipedias. Would you have any interest in helping me put English words at their proper orthographies? I've seen examples on the French, Spanish, and Portuguese wikis, but I'm sure there are more. What do you say? Dohn joe (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are exonyms. Like Varsavia is an exonym for Warsaw in Italian. But Huddersfield doesn't have exonyms in these languages. Do you know how linguists distinguish? ...and of course people except monarchs almost never have exonyms. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm confused. How can "Oregón" be an exonym in Spanish, but "Lodz" not be an exonym in English? They both differ from the original only in diacritics. Dohn joe (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The generation of exonyms varies from language to language, but the general rule is that if the spelling is the same in quality sources - like Lonely Planet - it is not an exonym. But to stick to the two examples above:
Spanish has exonyms for about 20 of the 50 states es:Categoría:Estados de Estados Unidos. The reason Oregón has a Spanish name is that is was claimed by Spain until 1819 as an extension of Spanish California. Hawái also has Spanish name for a similar reason, though the claim was not as formal.
The list of English exonyms for Polish toponyms is found on English exonyms - these are established in common usage and confirmed by practical usages such as Anita J. Prazmowska A History of Poland 2011 "Present day place names are used in the final chapter. Otherwise names which have passed into common usage and would be recognisable to English-language readers are used, thus Warsaw and not Warszawa, Cracow and not Kraków."
They evidently are exonyms, it isn't a random definition - look in a Spanish or Portuguese dictionary. The US state takes its name in Spanish from Lago Míchigan, an old name on Spanish maps. Geórgia in Portuguese refers to the country first, second the US State. There are accentation and pronunciation rules in each language which affect these. But again es:Huddersfieldpt:Huddersfield aren't exonyms. Just as English, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, Swedish, Swedish don't have exonyms for Mariánské Lázně. What is and isn't an exonym is firmly established and defined in dictionaries and grammars and quality sources which carry accents. Tabloid sources are just that, tabloid. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's hypothetical since Merriam-Webster isn't a quality dictionary, never has been. No it would need a larger survery of better sources, including grammars. M-W does have accents for Gdańsk, Wrocław but doesn't for Poznań and Łódź. M-W is unreliable about more important things than accents as well. I trust you can see from that example that M-W is simply unreliable, it isn't "my preference", it is crap because it is crap. There's no justification for Gdańsk, Wrocław but not Poznań and Łódź.
I don't have strong feelings - not as much as yourself I would imagine since you are the one making edits to ledes out of line with WP:OPENPARA. And in a normal sane environment this wouldn't even be an issue. As for M-W. A fanboy book like The Story of Webster's Third: Philip Gove's Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics (Herbert C. Morton, 1994) may well say "Today, Webster's Third is regarded by virtually all language experts as one of the great dictionaries of our time." but that doesn't change the fact that the web-edition is badly proofread and inconsistent. In the sector where I work I rarely if ever hear M-W cited. You saw yourself that the way it dealt with 4 Polish cities was inconsistent wheras the Oxford was consistent. That is typical. In any case you have seen that a reliable source, Oxford, distinguishes Zurich (exonym) from non-exonyms like Łódź. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I generally work on composer articles on my own though there are one or two editors who help out. But to be honest the above all strikes me as rather odd. In this day and age it shouldn't be necessary to have to explain at length to someone what an exonym is and why foreigner's names aren't exonyms. Particularly someone with a long edit history on the issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've learned a lot about diacritics since I first came across it here at WP - and I find it a fascinating issue. One thing I've learned is that authorities are split about whether a word has to differ in something more than orthography in order to be considered an exonym. Some scholars hold that differing pronunciation alone can create an exonym. So "Paris" could be considered an English exonym, since English speakers say, "Pair-iss" instead of "Pah-ree". Even our article Exonym and endonym is of two minds, saying at one point "Madrid, Paris, Berlin and Amsterdam, with identical names in most major European languages, are exceptions [i.e., not considered exonyms]", but two sections later saying "Over the years, the endonym may have undergone phonetic changes, either in the original language or the borrowing language, thus changing an endonym into an exonym, as in the case of Paris, where the s was formerly pronounced in French." Under the latter definition, "Lodz" (or even "Łódź") could be considered an exonym, because it has an English pronunciation (see Oxford online dictionary). That would also affect the other languages we've been discussing. Since "Virgínia" in Portuguese differs from "Virginia" in English only by use of an accent and in pronunciation, is it a true exonym? Does the etymology matter? These are interesting questions that I don't think anyone has a solid answer to.
As to the ars subtilior stuff, you're welcome to keep working on your own - I was just hoping that we could find some common WP ground to build on. I may stick around and work on it a bit on my own, too - it's such an intriguing period in music. Dohn joe (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which authorities are you referring to? Can you give the name of a linguist/grammarian who considers that removing the accents from a French, Polish or Serbian person's name creates an exonym? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this, from the Second International Symposium on Geographical Names, GeoNames 2000, where it was recommended that certain lists of exonyms "should not contain selected categories of exonyms, including those which differ from...endonyms only by omission, addition or alteration of diacritics." Which would mean that words that differ from endonyms only in use of diacritics constitute a category of exonyms. Or here, from Ferjan Ormeling, K. Hans Stabe, Jörn Sievers, Training course on toponymy: "Exonyms may be subdivided into pronunciation exonyms and orthographic exonyms. The first are visually similar to endonyms but would be pronounced differently, i.e. according to the pronunciation of the alphabet in the respective countries." Dohn joe (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sources happen to be in the context of geographical exonyms, but I don't see why they shouldn't apply to name exonyms as well. Do you know of any source that addresses the issue of the effect of diacritics specifically on name exonyms? If not, why shouldn't these two sources apply to name exonyms as well? Dohn joe (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may - nothing in the sources I gave limited themselves just to place exonyms, so why wouldn't they apply to name exonyms as well? Dohn joe (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because they aren't exonyms, they aren't "translated".
"The names of monarchs, popes, and non-contemporary authors as well as place-names are commonly translated. Foreign names for geographic proper names are called exonyms. Fourment-Berni Canani (1994) discusses the (im)possibility of translating proper names. He gives the examples of the place-names Venice and London. The Italian city Venezia has been renamed Venice in English and Venise in French. A city in the American state California is also called Venice, but this name is not changed into Venezia in Italian and Venise in French. Similarly, the English city London has been renamed Londres in French and Londra in Italian. However, the Canadian city called London is not translated into French and Italian in this way. Thus, as Fourment-Berni Canani concludes, a place-name can be translated if the place, as a unique referent, has already been renamed in the target language. ---- Loulou Edelman (2009). What's in a name? Classification of proper names by language. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: expanding the scenery (pp. 141–153). London: Routledge. Goh, CL (2009).
But the whole point is that there are scholars and professionals who do consider diacritic-changed words exonyms - that's what I meant by "authorities are split". I agree that there are some who do not - do you agree that there are some who do? Dohn joe (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've found two sources - partially visible in Google Books, one of which says that a catalogue should not list exonyms, and the other which talks about "pronunciation exonyms" (which means like English saying "Parriss" instead of French "Paree"). Authorities are not split. In any case en.wp usage is stable. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of that article and of Supercapitalism, my inclination would actually be to restore the latter as an actual article instead of a dab page, and merge the former back into it, thus eliminating the need to craft a better qualifier. That was the original setup (see here for its most recent incarnation). Since the creation of the dab page over three years ago, the only two items there have been the fascism article and a redlink to a book by Robert Reich (later changed to the concept as espoused by Reich). Despite the most recent edit summary at Supercapitalism, I think we should assume for now that there will not be a separate article on "modern" supercapitalism, and merge the two together. That, of course, can be done without admin tools. Further, looking at Google Books convinces me that there should be an overview article on supercapitalism - Mussolini and Robert Reich not being the only people to espouse the concept. What do you think? (If you think the current setup is fine, then I'd suggest Supercapitalism (fascism) as an alternative.) Dohn joe (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did read your reply shortly after you posted it; thank you. I'm full up with the Signpost news cycle right now (Wikimania). I'll get back to this next week. Tony(talk) 11:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tip speed ratio
Perhaps just spaced. It's a ratio of speeds at the tip: the speed of the tip and the speed of the wind. Modification with "tip" simply means that the speed of the rotating blade is measured at the tip. Sources have evenly divided for almost two decades. Tony(talk) 07:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the somewhat delayed response - it's been nuts in real life lately. I actually think the hyphen is the way to go here. "Tip speed" is an actual, defined term in aerodynamics - see here for example. As such, it's better thought of as a ratio of "tip speed" to "wind speed", and so the hyphen would be the preferred usage. I think the relatively common hyphenation found in the sources reflects that - as you know, sources often tend to underhyphenate even when the hyphen makes more sense. I don't recall any cases of the reverse, where significant hyphenation happens when it's not strictly called for. That's how I see it, at least. Dohn joe (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hello Dohn Joe, did you realise Hồ Chí Minh Prize was my work? Not being WP:OWNER about, but I'd be interested to know given our previous discussions about your views on foreign names. Please reply here, I'll check this page. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I haven't been around much that last ten days. To answer your question - I did not know it was your work. You are one of about a dozen editors whose contributions I take a look at periodically, out of shared interest or just out of curiosity. I saw the article there and looked into it. There's nothing wrong with a little ownership, but I would encourage you to look at the Google Books search I posted when I moved the article. Sorry again for the delayed response... Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were left this message 5 Sept, you reply here 15 Sept expecting me to be watching, and then 17 Sept move it and THEN send a message? you're being intentionally disruptive and WP:POINTY. Please leave it alone. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn, I trust you'll abide by WP:CANVASS here. FYI After an RfC with 23 to 16 in favour of use of Vietnamese titles (or 23 to 10 if you discount CANVASSing similar to this) I restored 80 of 800 undiscussed moves geo articles which were moved contrary to geo RM results at Talk:Ca Mau - geo RM results which were hidden with deleting RM notices and IP puppet activity archiving contrary RMs. If you really want to get involved be warned this is a bitey cesspit. The anti-foreign-names cause may be sincere with some, but the behaviour in this case is not. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking into the canvassing issue - I have no idea how impartial Kauffner was in his notifications - I can tell you that I have no intention to wade into this particular cesspit at this time. Dohn joe (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening editors with a "bitey cesspit" if they choose to participate in an RM strikes me as highly inappropriate behavior, as I mentioned here. Kauffner (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and nice work on the new article! That's something I had halfway planned to create for years, but never felt like I had enough sourcing. What you dug up is great! I would like to find a source for the "oldest commercial trail" thing because that's a pretty broad claim. If we can't find a source online, maybe we could take a picture of one of the plaques, upload it to Commons, and then pull it into the article. Is that something you are able to do? I am clueless about images. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on the ref. You beat me to it! I found one in a document by the SD River Conservancy, but yours is more of a secondary source, so it wins. Thanks! As for images, I'm likewise clueless. Dohn joe (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a second link for that fact, because I am planning to nominate the article for DYK, so we'll have to have the hook thoroughly cited. (I'll do the nomination - since you wrote the article; if I nominate it, there isn't a quid-pro-quo requirement to review another nomination.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of images - there's this from the La Playa Foundation website, which they claim comes from a US government survey from 1850. How can we use that image for the article? There are other images of the plaques online - any idea how we can use them? Thanks for your help with the article - I knew once I posted it you'd jump in and make it better! Dohn joe (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good map, dated 1857. I wonder if there is some way to convert the magnification into a file of its own? I know somebody who is good with images, I will ask him. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh! We fell into the hands of one of the "DYK articles must meet GA standards" people, who insist that every sentence or even every portion of a sentence must be referenced. (The last time I encountered this kind of DYK review, seen here, I swore I would never submit another DYK nomination. In this case I really care about the article, which I have wanted to see in Wikipedia for years, so I stuck with it.) Thank goodness you had such good references to start with. And hey, the reviewer did add your map to the article, that was great! --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome about the map. Sorry you've had to run around looking for cites for every clause in the article. It probably makes for a better article, but worn-out editors... Hopefully it'll be worth it to see that hook on the front page! Dohn joe (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that paragraph - interesting stuff! The tangent I was hoping to explore next was the early history of Roseville. Nail factories and railroads and Chinese junks - we'll see if my enthusiasm lasts long enough to make it to the article.... Dohn joe (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK is all approved and you can find out the exact schedule for the hook to go on the front page here: Template:Did you know/Queue. It hasn't been slotted into a queue yet, but I'm guessing it will go into Queue 6 - which would be tomorrow, the 23rd, from 5 pm till 1 am San Diego time. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Playa Trail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballast Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This[11] was proposed a couple of weeks ago. No one objected, so I tweaked it a little and dropped it in. I agree that the multi form can also be fixed, but that was not as high a priority. Apteva (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you moved it to the other editor's version, when they moved with no edit summary from a version that had been stable for over a year, and when they salted the pages so a non-admin could not carry out WP:BRD? I don't want to drag you into anything - like I said, I appreciate the thankless job you do. But it does not seem fair to favor that sort of conduct. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burrito, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Central Valley and Stockton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Wikipedia editor Jorgath just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This is a decent article. It could use some expansion in some areas if you can find the sources to do so, but overall good work. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dohn joe, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Peridon (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN suggested this, and I agree with her. It's not a 'right' I've given before - I don't do much in the rights area, spending most of my time deleting things (that really need deleting, that is...). Keep up the good work. I'm planning on getting Melanie to check my next article - if and when I get it going. Peridon (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm glad that my articles are strong enough to ease the load of the new page patrollers. And thanks to Melanie for suggesting it. Dohn joe (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Properly and fairly researching (in reliable sources) and sourcing of names (of people and places)
Hello - as another editor reverted me again, I decided to explain over at the Talk:Doctor Zhivago page. Let me know if you'd like any more explanation. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk)
I agree with the IP that uncited references to Aztecs eating popcorn are not directly relevant to burrito history; if someone disagrees, please find a cite that connects the two, and take it to the talkpage
I'm having trouble understanding your edit summary. The entire paragraph is appropriately cited at the end of the paragraph. None of it is unsourced and it is connected by the source itself as an antecedent.[12][13] Further, listing other types of foods that the same culture ate as hand-held foods is directly related to the topic as the burrito does not exist by itself by in the historical context of the cultures who created them. Those two links I just gave you above explain it entirely in that context. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the overall issue at the burrito talkpage. As for uncited, you're right - it was cited at the end of the paragraph. The bigger issue, though, is relevance. I don't see how Aztecs eating popcorn is relevant, especially since the source does not connect them. All the source says is that Aztecs ate snack food. The only reference to fillings comes at the end, when it discusses Pueblos using fillings, which remains in the burrito article.
More troublingly, was this edit summary aimed at me: "This material is fully sourced appropriately at the end of the paragraph. I've added the page numbers and left links directly to the material on your talk page. The old "remove content with an IP" and revert with a registered account game is tiring"? I don't see anyone else it could refer to, based on the timing of edits. If it was aimed at me, I would appreciate an apology for the wrong accusation and assumption of bad faith. Dohn joe (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the account belongs to Peter-T and one other user. I've explained the rest on the article talk page. The popcorn is relevant because it shows that the Aztecs ate hand held snack foods, which leads into a discussion of the burrito. And yes, the source does connect them on p. 240. In other words, the burrito is a hand held snack food used by the Aztecs, and they had other hand held snack foods just like this. Foods don't just emerge out of nowhere. Food history will give the reader information about other foods that were also in the same class, in this case, hand held snack foods like the burrito. The same source does connect the Aztecs with the burrito in the tortilla section, and the Latino Culture source ties it together. You're almost arguing that the burrito emerged by itself, fully formed, without any relation to its forebears. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replied again at the burrito page, but briefly - p. 240 says that Aztecs ate popcorn and jerky, and that the Spanish noted them selling tamales, tortillas, and sauces. No mention of fillings or wrapping here. Then it says that the Pueblos - not the Aztecs - used fillings in tortillas like burritos. That's why we can use that sentence but not the rest of the entry. As for p. 270, the passage on Sahagun observing tortilla preparation again does not discuss fillings. It's not until fillings are mentioned that the source becomes relevant to burrito history, which again, is why that portion is used in the article but not the rest. I hope I'm at least making my position clear, even if you disagree. Dohn joe (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topics
I sympathize with you on Brand New. At least we have made progress in getting a closing analysis for the second RM—but if there was "no consensus" for the second RM, that begs the question of how consensus was found in the first survey and discussion. Just wanted to make you aware of some broader policy and guideline debates, in case you had not noted them, as I haven't seen you post any comments there.
And seeing how you like data and analysis, I was contemplating the fact that while we have many categories for dabs – see Category:Disambiguation pages – including Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic (in which the backlog is very modest in comparison to other administrative backlogs) – there is no Category:Primary topics. As long as we have a significant portion of editors with the opinion that determination of primary topic should be 90% based on usage, and another significant contingent with the opinion that primary topic should be 90% based on long-term significance it will be difficult to get a consensus. Lacking that, all we have are de facto guidelines based on case-by-case examination of titles and individual "!votes" (which in practice really are votes) to determine "consensus." I'm considering an attempt at writing a bot to create a comprehensive list of all primary topics. I think it should be possible. A simple programming algorithm can define a primary topic. For example, Iron Crag is not a PT because disambiguation of the title is not required, i.e., there is no Iron Crag (disambiguation). Brand New is not a PT because there is a {{disambiguation}} template on the page. Inverteris a PT even though it redirects to the naturally disambiguated title Power inverter, because there is an Inverter (disambiguation). No Power inverter (disambiguation) keeps that off my list. I think a list of primary topics would be interesting and might provide more insight into the de facto consensus. Do you think such an effort would be worthwhile? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely be interested to see what the results would be. And I have seen the discussions at WT:Disambiguation, although not at Village Pump. I may weigh in at some point. Keep me posted on anything you might do with primary topic tracking. Dohn joe (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiknic Poway / San Diego
Join us this Saturday for the Great American Wiknic!
Sure - the purpose of the special redirect is to track clicks from a specific page for statistical purposes. In this case, the Big redirect lets us know exactly how many people go from the disambiguation page to the film article. Other special redirects on the Big dab page are doing the same for other articles. Once we have enough data, we can hopefully see how effective the current setup of the dab page is. Dohn joe (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's neat! I've seen questions about disambiguation pages in RM discussions. Is there a centralized discussion about this redirect project anywhere? I'd like to keep up with it. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're still watching this page... I don't know of any centralized discussion. So far it's been used on an ad hoc basis. Feel free to use them yourself - and I hope to post results on Big fairly soon, so you can keep watching there. Dohn joe (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Reality Changers 2013 logo.pdf)
Thanks for uploading File:Reality Changers 2013 logo.pdf. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 18 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reality Changers, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that graduates of the Reality Changers program had earned an estimated $25 million in college scholarships through 2012? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reality Changers. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for fixing the page move here; you beat me to it! I've posted a grumble on the talk pages (there and on EPK's talkpage) as it kind of pissed me off. Anyway, time for me to go now and shout at the traffic! Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - you didn't even give me 10 minutes to respond. And I see that you have reverted again. This would put you in violation of our 3-revert rule, which is something we take pretty seriously. Please undo your revert. As for the question you asked...
Your version - "In the version of an article where name with the first and middle names written in full is used nearly as often as the version with abbreviated names followed by a period, prefer the version with these names written in full." - is ungrammatical because it needs a "the" or "a" between "where" and "name" to make sense. More importantly, though, it also changes the meaning of the sentence. The original sentence - "If the version of an article name with the first and middle names written in full is used nearly as often as the version with abbreviated names followed by a period, prefer the version with these names written in full." - is talking about different versions of an article name, and gives guidance as to which name to use as the title. Your version talks about different versions of an article, and gives guidance as to which name to choose within the article, which is not the purpose of the sentence or the page. I hope that makes sense. If you have another version, I'd be happy to take a look at it, or you can propose it on the talkpage. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks a lot for clarifying it. I thought that the original sentence was to guide the editors on how to use a particular name within an article and that's the reason I made that edit. I didn't really mean to mess up the article. Thanks again. Oh, by the way, I've undone my revert. 49.249.4.122 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem (especially about the late reply - folks around here are used to dealing with people all over the world with all kinds of timetables - never be surprised if it takes 20 hours for someone to reply). It's not the most straightforward sentence. And I appreciate your self-revert. Next time, rather than an edit war, try directly engaging editors either on their personal talkpages or on the article talkpage. That way, we don't disrupt the page itself while we discuss ways to improve it. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About my revert...
No worries on reverting it. Honestly, I don't even remember doing it. I'm guessing that I accidentally did it while fixing other issues I saw on other pages. Steel1943 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...I see what happened now. I hate that rollback doesn't have a confirmation page. I press that option accidentally more than anything when I'm using a mobile device. In fact, I think it is happening to me so much lately that it's either time for me to start some sort of proposal for an option to have a confirmation page, or to request the right be taken away from me. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Delurking) The same thing happened to me so much that I did request temporary, indefinite suspension of my rollback userrights. I'd like to see a confirmation option implemented also, as the intentional use of rollbacks makes reverting multiple instances of vandalism from a mobile device much easier. - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Another talk page stalker; did you know you had so many?) I feel the same way. I also requested to have my rollback privileges removed, after a few too many accidental reverts due to cell phone / small button / big fingers. If you want a confirmation step, that's easy; just use "undo" instead of "rollback". I never did see the point of rollback, all it does is save one keystroke while eliminating the ability to say "oops, I didn't mean to do that". --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rollbacks undoes all the consecutive edits by the last user, not just a single edit as with undo, so that's the main advantage for me, as I don't use any other tools. And yeah, I had quite a few (if you meant me!), which is why I preemptively requested it be disabled, rather than having it stripped from me. That way, I can ask to have it restored if a solution beomes available. Since it's becoming a problem for many users, perhaps one will soon. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat & MelanieN, I just found a way to "rollback" without using Rollback. When looking through the edit history, just click on the time stamp of the edit you want to go back to, and then save (with an edit history.) Ever since I realized this, Rollback's existence seems unnecessarily redundant. Steel1943 (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Hi, excuse me but I'm putting this on User:Talk page so there is no possibility of missing it on article Talk page. When and editor makes a (B) bold edit such as deleting substantial stable longstanding content from an article and are a (R) reverted, and (D) discussion ensues on the talk page, then repeating the (B) regardless is heading towards the spirit of edit warring with or without the bright line WP:3RR.
Secondly your understanding of WP:OR is at fault. You want for example to strike the following:
Brugge/Bruges : Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area)
This is not WP:OR, this falls into the category of WP:POINTY. Frommer's Brussels & Bruges with Ghent & Antwerp - Page 128 and other sources will easily confirm the fact given as blindingly obvious. This does not constitute WP:OR this constitutes wikt:attributable content.
The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.
Yes, that ref was removed because it was a non-sequitur. The Lonely Planet excerpt on Izmir had nothing to do with Istanbul. The second ref did nothing to show anything. I am not challenging that Istanbul is an exonym. Using that ref to claim that it is the only exonym of a Turkish place is synthesis, and is contradicted by our own article.... Dohn joe (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a great little article. Thanks for taking the initiative in creating it. One little question - do you have any online sources? That might be a nice addition. But otherwise, very well done. I think it would be worth trying out as a primary topic. We can always re-evaluate it later. Thanks again. Dohn joe (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered this on Born2cycle's talk page. You should both perhaps bear in mind that the vast majority of such RMs have passed by a considerable margin. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment and request on In ictu's talkpage. RMs by and large should be encouraged. Repetitive or WP:POINTY RMs might lean towards disruption, but I don't see that here. The undiscussed unilateral moves are more troubling, but I left a note with In ictu to say the types of such moves that I found unwarranted. Given In ictu's history, I imagine that most of those will go to RM, to be decided by the community. I don't think there's anything worthy of AN/I at this point. Dohn joe (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Melanie - I really appreciate it. I found some great materials and learned a lot over the last month or so. The article still needs a little work, but I think it's in much better shape now! Thanks again for your contributions to the discussion - it really helped focus things. Dohn joe (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RfD
Thanks for the interesting discussion at RfD about plural article titles and so on at RfD. Very insightful comments. I am not sure I agree with them: I thought that is why we discussed things: but obviously intelligently made (as your others above are: I have not read them in full). I am told off for rambling so will keep this brief; it was a pleasure to meet you but because of one spat on AfD looks like I shall be banned. User:SimonTrew editing as IP not as avoidance but because I asked the account to be deleted. 178.164.244.5 (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I didn't see if there was any ongoing discussion on the talk page. Whoops! Thanks for reverting me, I'll see you at the discussion going on there. Red Slash06:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking? later changed to "Following?" by User:In ictu oculi
Approximately 4% of my last 100 contribs. I moved four pages that you had boldly moved, but left the base name pointing to the dabbed name, which is generally a WP no-no (unnecessary disambiguation). You've now created dabs for a couple, and the discussions over the base names are ongoing. Otherwise, we have overlapping WP interests, as you know - RMs, naming guidelines, etc. There's no wiki-stalking going on. Dohn joe (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You actually inserted a tag here. I make it more like 50% plus. Okay, I've changed the section heading. But isn't there a tool that assesses who has been following whom? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, but that would have been stalking of Jenks's page, not yours. And I don't know anything about a tool that tracks "following". And if you would drop out of RM, I probably wouldn't "follow" you at all.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm I'm pretty sure Dohn joe is one of my talk page watchers (and has been since back when I was very active), just like I'm one of his. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Customs House San Ysidro
Thanks, I currently live in Mexico City, often go "home" to San Diego by flying to Tijuana and walk by that building... So I just had to! Keizers (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alopex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Er, it sounds like I've inadvertently stepped into the middle of something here. I'm sorry, gentlemen, I didn't mean to pick a side in your disagreement. I just want to get Dohn joe's opinion on a few moves I requested recently (the first three listed above), and the move request made by someone else (the last shown above) that inspired me to submit them. I wasn't aware that you two know each other. Peace to you both. — Jaydiem (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But your moves left the base names as redirects to the articles. So either you considered them wp:primarytopic, in which case disambiguation is not needed, or you didn't, in which case you should have done something else with the base names. Your actions left the pages in limbo. Dohn joe (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I left them for a day or so because it allows other editors who may have contributed to the article to revert by WP:BRD if they wish to discuss. If you were not stalking me no one who actually contributed to the articles would have reverted and I would have come round in 48 hours and tidied up. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Why leave "40/40" as a redirect to the base name article, but turn "Lo Mejor" immediately into a dab? As I told you at your talkpage, your actions are inconsistent at best. Dohn joe (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes perfect sense. If I tamper with the redirect it makes WP:BRD impossible, hence I leave it 48 hours to give the article creator/article contributor time to respond. 4040 already has a dab. Lo Mejor didn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - done. A hatnote made more sense at 30 Exitos Insuperables. It would have saved us all some time if you had done this yourself the first time around. Dohn joe (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Us" who is us? The only editor whose time has been wasted is mine. It wouldn't have saved time for the reason above. Do you understand what I am saying If I tamper with the redirect it makes WP:BRD impossible, hence I leave it 48 hours to give the article creator/article contributor time to respond. I will do exactly the same in future for the same reason. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you allowing time for BRD. But why get upset when someone exercises it? The article creator does not have special veto power. Any editor in good standing has an equal right and opportunity to use the BRD process. Right? Dohn joe (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting "upset", please do not transfer emotions and motivations with such language, I am commenting on your "It would have saved us all some time" comment noting that there is no "us" - the only editor whose time is wasted by your actions is mine because I am the only editor you appear to be following. It would be different if you were contributing the encyclopedia in other ways such as creating articles, adding sources, uploading images. But your edit activity doesn't show that. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, frankly, I've been paying much more attention to your contribs since this latest round of moves, so I'm sure I found it there. I'm not trying to cause you distress or single you out, but I noticed what seemed to me to be a pattern of moves that were against WP policy, or at least questionable, and the resulting RMs have borne that out - the moves that I questioned in this area are certainly controversial, judging by the RM discussions. If you feel wikihounded, let me know, but I've been acting in good faith. Do you have any issue with my edit to that particular article? Dohn joe (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Again, do you feel wikihounded? I'm working to improve the encyclopedia, just as you are, but if so, let me know, and we can work that out. 2) Again, do you disagree with the edit I made? 3) Retract the "significant contribution" comment please. You've made it twice now, and it's simply not true, in addition to being irrelevant. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fox 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.
Good on you for nominating "ain't" for GA status. I'll help as I can. One thing I can tell you they will pounce on immediately: You need citations for your "notable examples" section. They will probably want a citation for each one.
A couple of points I always meant to quibble with you about, and haven't gotten around to: the claim that ain't in the US indicates "a middle level of education"; that seemed shaky to me, implying that middle-educated people use it more than poorly-educated people; I find that unlikely. Also the next paragraph, the one about the south, seems to contradict itself - is it in common usage among educated southerners, or is it used as a marker to separate educated speakers from others?
Thanks, Melanie. This is my first foray into GA, so any help at all would be greatly appreciated!
As for the quibbles, I took those points directly from the source, as I recall, but I'll go back and see if I can word them more clearly, or find other sources. Dohn joe (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on whether other editors understand your point, but it is clear the majority disagree with your conclusions. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I have no issue with disagreement, and consensus will be what it will be. But it's impossible for two people to have a discussion (well, a fruitful one, at least) when they don't see what the other is trying to say. It seems like we've got to that point at 1978-1990. Dohn joe (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a pattern. My July contribs so far show 40 mainspace edits (at a wide range of articles), 37 talkpage edits (mostly at ongoing RMs), 22 WP talk edits (all on the date range issue), and 16 user talk edits (at my own page, plus richhoncho, blueboar, and anthony appleyard). Dohn joe (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MoS guideline pages
I've taken it as a WP:AGF mistake in treating a guideline page which had been vandalised as if it were an ordinary article (per your edit summary here[15]). Please take care not treat policy and guideline pages in this manner in future. Any opinion you wish to add to the discussion regarding policies and guidelines should be pursued on the relevant talk page which is, in this case, to be found here. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ain't you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article Ain't you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ain't for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article Ain't you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ain't for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of town and can't help, but if you decide to do a DYK may I suggest a hook ? Did you know... that the saying " Ain't ain't in the dictionary" ain't true? MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look like someone else did so already, and someone suggested a very similar hook - we'll see what they pick. Thanks for the help on the article, btw. It's always a pleasure working with you - enjoy your wikibreak! Dohn joe (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ain't, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there ain't no more? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ain't. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Wow, more than 12,000 page views! [16] That one will go into the record books, as any DYK does when it gets more than 5000 views. For some reason the person who promoted it to the front page chose the WORST of the proposed alternate hooks, the one nobody in the discussion had supported. But I guess we can't argue with the results! --MelanieN (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness! Who woulda thunk that such a humble little word would get so many views? I agree on the hook, but yeah, it seems to have turned out okay. And only a half dozen edits to the article itself, with no real vandalism - that surprised me as well.... Dohn joe (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ceyhan River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pınarbaşı. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Elliott, San Diego, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I've got your nose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ragnar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Sorry sir, unpoisoned jellyfishs are exist. They maybe still have stinging cells, but evolution make them unpoisoned and even we can touch or cuddle with them. They are in isolated ponds/lakes near the sea. Some lakes have very very small access to the sea and the other are not. Because it is isolated, so rain will make the lakes with low salinity and because there are no predator for jellyfishs, the jellyfishs become unpoisoned. Previously, researchers found only 2 sites in the world has unpoisoned jellyfish, one in Kakaban and the other in Palau. But now Indonesia has found 7 lakes with unpoisoned jellyfishs. You can read Kakaban article for complete explanation. Kakaban has been developed as tourists destination with its 4 unposoined kinds of jellyfishs. Uniqely, the bigger jellyfishs still eat the smaller jellyfishs of different type with its tentacels, although unpoisoned.Gsarwa (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's incorrect. There are some jellyfish that are harmless to humans, because their stinging cells are unable to penetrate human skin. But all jellyfish have stinging cells, and use them against their own prey. The salinity of the lakes, and whether there are predators are not relevant issues. There has been no evolutionary loss of toxicity in jellyfish. Dohn joe (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four of them are Aurelia aurita with transparent body, Tripedalia cystophora which only has a tip finger size, Mastigias papua is likes a green-brown bulb, Cassiopea ornata which is upside-down jellyfish with their tentacles upright. I wonder there are 2 kinds of a species that can sting a human and the other in isolated lakes cannot sting human at all. If the 4 kinds of species above truly cannot sting human why they always found in some fresh water isolated lakes. Can they found also in open sea.Gsarwa (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are which found in marine environtment can sting human, while in isolated fresh water cannot sting human at all, even if we touch the tentacel with bare hand.Gsarwa (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are identical. Even the ones in the jellyfish lakes are trying to sting you - their stinging cells are just not able to get inside your skin. Lots of times, if you put the tentacles somewhere sensitive, like the inside of your lip, you'll be able to feel it! Dohn joe (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just that "airplane" is not limited to the U.S. and Canada. So unless we want to go through each English-speaking country and determine the prevalence of air versus aero, it's simpler to just leave it as is. Dohn joe (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the Etymology and usage part of the Airplane article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane, the following: In the United States and Canada, the term "airplane" is used for powered fixed-wing aircraft. That's helpful information for people who don't already know about why there are two words for that. I thought that if it's included in Airplane article, it would be helpful to include it in the Fixed-wing aircraft article as well. English wikipedia is also read by people who don't have a high level of English so info like that, helps. Specac (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but I think that the info at the airplane article is also imprecise, and should probably be improved. If someone is really interested in the different spellings, the airplane article is probably the best place for them to go. Dohn joe (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss on the talk page with other editors and achieve consensus before changing article titles, especially a title that refers to an artist series, thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Let Me Entertain You (Robbie Williams song), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Steppenwolf and Magic Carpet Ride. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memorial, San Diego, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Logan Heights. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for adding the section on snowbows, although I'm not too certain about their legitimacy. Snow has optical properties different both from liquid water droplets (responsible for rainbows, fogbows, glories and such) and hexagonal ice crystals (responsible for halos). Some of the references provided are quite vague in their description, which may well refer to halos or fogbows instead. As I'm not able to verify this right now I'm okay with leaving the section as is, except for the reference to Humphrey, Up From The Ground.[1] The relevant citation reads: I saw my first snowbow this morning. Wind whipped the loose snow high into the air just after sunrise, and the light filtering through the particles created a vertical ribbon of color. Not only is this very vague, it does not seem to describe a bow of any kind, but rather a light pillar[2] or an elongated sun dog[3], both of which are types of halos. Drabkikker (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits here. I agree that there is uncertain and conflicting usage under the umbrella of "snowbow." Some of the descriptions do indicate a phenomenon analogous to rainbows (as opposed to halos). If I come across anything more tangible or helpful, I'll be sure to add to the article. Dohn joe (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; especially the explicit mention of the location opposite the sun in Ask Tom Why[4] is worth taking seriously. The entry in The Arctic Dictionary[5] is ambiguous at best. I wasn't able to access A View from Vermont[6]; would you know what it says? Thanks for your response! Drabkikker (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is something Marcel Minnaert has to say about it: Whenever it occurs, the rainbow is always formed by light playing on drops of water. They are generally raindrops, occasionally the fine, tiny drops of mist. In the finest, smallest drops of all, those that make up the clouds, it can never be seen. If, therefore, you ever hear anyone say that he has seen a rainbow in falling snow or when the sky was clear, you can be certain that the snow was sleet or that one of those showers of drizzle was falling that occur sometimes without there being any clouds. (Marcel Minnaert, Light and Color in the Outdoors (1993, translated from the Dutch 1974 edition), section 140, p. 187.) In section 150 on "The fogbow or white rainbow" (pp. 201-201) no mention of snow is made, nor do the words "snow[]bow" or "ice[]bow" occur anywhere in the book. Of course this doesn't prove or disprove much, but you'd expect someone like Minnaert to mention it if it existed. Drabkikker (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text from A View from Vermont describes a snowbow viewed by the author: "Two years ago on Easter, a prism of snowbow arced across the sky, one colorful foot on the golf course and the other foot planted firmly in my lawyer's upstairs window." Which sounds more rainbow-like and less halo-like, but also not definitive. I've come across other similar descriptions in works that didn't seem quite worthy of citing in the article, as they are as or more anecdotal than this one. Let me know if you think those other sources are worth considering. Dohn joe (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lomita, San Diego, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spring Valley, California. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
CookieMonster755 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
I've been impressed by your experiments on redirects with "(redirect)" in Doctor Zhivago page. Shall we do the same with songs at the Track listing section of Like a Virgin? Probably we need a consensus to do that. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George. Thanks. What is the reason to add (redirect) to those songs? The usual reason is to add a hidden way to track usage from a page. Let me know your thinking. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many of your edits are following me as a percentage? Some of us are trying to make this place an easier place to navigate. Your failure to reverse your opposition on Talk:King of Hell or correct your misreading of Google Books is something you really should consider. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I truly believe that you think you are making things easier. And I agree with a large number of your edits. But some of your theories are misguided and not actually in the best interests of the readers. Go back through all the RMs where you and I have differed. Sometimes you are on the side of consensus, and sometimes I am. Neither one of us in infallible. But we both are trying to do what we believe improves the encyclopedia. Along those lines, please do not call me a troll again, or my actions trolling, as you did here. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know: During July you commented at a move request, now at Talk:Greyshirt (comics). The discussion was closed as "move". However, one of the discussants has reopened the discussion. Your original comment will still be taken into account and there is no need for you add anything further, but I am notifying all previous discussants as a courtesy. (I know you know about this so the notification is kind of silly, but just being thorough). MelanieN (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None - it resulted in a good discussion that determined a consensus. You've made enough unilateral moves against consensus that I would be more hesitant to make such statements. Dohn joe (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk·contribs) 10:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite reasonable. I don't see why those pages were created in the first place (in May 2013). They are all unused now, so they should all be deleted. But WP is very lazy when it comes to deleting even the most useless redirects. -A876 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see why George Ho commented above. George Ho was one of three people who normalized the links, which Dohn joe then reverted. Dohn joe posted an explanation at Talk:Doctor Zhivago The weird redirect pages with "(redirect)" in the title were "temporary", "several special redirects that will allow us to track reader behavior from this disambiguation page". (There should be rules against tracking experiments and pointing links from articles (including "set list" and disambiguation) to weird pages.) They should be enforced. (I wouldn't expect to get away with it.) Fortunately there is not a lot of this going on.) There he linked to results he posted at Talk:Doctor Zhivago (film)#Usage_stats, saying "I suggest leaving the links here in place until any discussion over there concludes." (Discussion over there ended in October 2013.) -A876 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 4 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Talk:Ziyue (band) was created at this title and only just moved and reverted. That was evidently not an uncontroversial move. Please restore to baseline and argue as case why (band) should be removed from "Confucius says". In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree with you, but here, the situation you had set up, with a base name redirecting to a disambiguated name, is unusual, and generally against WP policy and practice, especially when there is not even a dab page in existence. This would normally be a case for a technical move, which is essentially what the other editor carried out. I don't know - I'll have to think about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Dohn joe (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu: the situation you created, and now seek to enforce, is clearly against usual WP practice. So there's little doubt that the current setup would be upheld in an RM. The question, then, is how strictly do we adhere to the process, or is WP:IAR okay here? Dohn joe (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:In ictu oculi - you know what, I've thought about this some more. Following the correct process is something that I often argue for, and I should be consistent with my own arguments. So I'll follow your suggestion and self-revert over there. Dohn joe (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coexist (image), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Coexist symbol used on bumper stickers started life as a 3 m × 5 m (9.8 ft × 16.4 ft) outdoor poster in a juried art exhibition in Jerusalem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coexist (image). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
In ictu, as I've explained before, we have overlapping interests at WP. It is very likely that we will interact at many places. Overall, you are a very strong, positive contributor to the encyclopedia. There are some areas, though, where your sense of consensus is either overestimated, or incorrect. If I react to a small percentage of your edits, and not vice-versa, it's because I generally think WP's status quo works - and moves against that status quo deserve a little scrutiny on occasion. Look, we both have WP's best interests at heart. I really try to WP:AGF with you, and mostly it's justified. One more thing - look at RMs in which we have both participated. Look at the percentage of time 1) we agree; 2) I have been on the side of consensus; and 3) you have been on the side of consensus. You might be surprised with what you find.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe not. I've explained why I think we interact on occasion. If you have concerns, feel free to raise them at an appropriate venue. Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I actually enjoy the collegial aspects of WP, and good discussions, as long as all parties are open to each other's ideas. Dohn joe (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a horrible thing to say, and I don't know how to respond to that. I'm really just shocked, actually, and sorry you feel that. I've tried on so many occasions to engage you. Somewhere along the line, you made your mind up about me, and that was that. I wish that you would recognize that my perspective is valid, even if you disagree with it, as I try to do with you. And recognize that sometimes, I'm even right!
In the meantime, I don't want you feel stalked. You may not believe it, but it's not personal. I think it arises because you are such a prolific page mover, often without proven consensus, and I on occasion challenge what I think are moves against policy. As I've said before, most of your moves are positive/neutral when it comes to policy. A minority, though, are against consensus, or at least controversial. Most of the time you know this. So I challenge those moves sometimes. And if you look at your moves I challenge, the majority of my challenges hold up. Am I always right? Of course not! But I prefer to let the WP community have their say on controversial issues, and whatever way the winds blow, so be it.
I may have a potential solution, though. Would you be willing to reach out to a neutral third party admin and see if they could mediate some kind of workable interaction solution between us? If you're feeling scared that I might "do something" to you (how, I have no idea), then it's well past time that we try to figure this out. We should both feel free to edit on WP how we wish, but not at the expense of the other. What do you say? Dohn joe (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I have been mentioned
Yes I see both of you from time to time, when you pop up on on my watchlist at:-
As you can see my interests are limited and do not extend to obscure Italian villages etc etc etc (yes I have looked over your disagreements), but at the same time, because of the both of you reading the same guidelines in completely differently I do see both of you on a frequent basis. I will leave you both with one consideration, "should anything relatively obscure be primary topic and is there any benefit to WP in moving just to adhere to a guideline?" --Richhoncho (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stopping by, Richhoncho. As to your question(s), I don't think there's any minimum notability needed for something to qualify as primary for that term. And no guideline should be followed blindly - but they are there for a reason, and have been discussed (usually ad nauseum), so should be given great weight in making decisions. The goal is to get as many people as possible to the article they want as quickly as possible. Whether we're right or wrong, the community has decided that primarytopic is one way to do that. Dohn joe (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Reality Changers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Changers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish article RM was closed with consensus against your position. Please do not move any more pages against this consensus. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subjects are both singles, and the disambigued one is also gold in the USA and it charted on the same country with a very good position. The other single (the one without disambiguation) didn't even chart, why it should be more relevant? The Wikipedia rules speaks clearly, there's no need of discussion about what single should be at the main title (and still I've created a disambiguation page, just to be objective). --Tartufo(msg)07:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Interesting version of stalking, where I edit first and you undo. But seriously - you always talk about benefiting readers. How does hiding the most popular articles halfway down a dab page behind non-links help anyone? Please see MOS:DABORDER - "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below." Dohn joe (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn, you moved a ton of articles to include a comma back when WP:JR said that either was acceptable, after I had fixed them to agree with WP:JR at a previous time. Now that WP:JR is fixed again, are you OK with me working on fixing these things? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, those moves and move requests were to the previous (usually years-long) status quo after you had moved them or had them moved away from an acceptable style, which is still the case. I would highly recommend that you stop this practice, which is against WP:MOS: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." WP:JR still explicitly allows for both styles. In other words, there's nothing to "fix". Moving to your preferred style is against WP policy and ethos. For that, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan#Preferred_styles and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk#Optional_styles. I do appreciate you coming here and checking, but I can't say it's okay. Dohn joe (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing things in the direction of recommended styling is normal, not usually controversial, no matter how long a non-recommended style has been there. In the case of WP:JR, the styling recommendation that had been in place for many years was recently re-affirmed by an RFC. So why fight to keep the dis-preferred style? Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pretty straightforward to me. We have two styles which are both acceptable, both in and out of WP. We have the MOS - and two RfAs - saying don't move from one acceptable style to another just because of editor preference. You prefer no comma, which is fine, but it is not a good reason to move articles or change styles. Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS expressses a clear preference, especially for cases where the usage in sources is mixed. It does not say putting the comma is equally preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn, you seem to be alone in fighting WP:JR. Your use of "uncontroversial move" requests to move articles directly against recommendations recently decided in an RFC at VPP is rather disruptive, don't you think? How can a move contrary to the recommendations of the MOS be uncontroversial? I suggest you work this out in discussion rather than more direct disruption of ordinary recommended edits. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mass moves from natural to parenthetical disambiguation?
Do you really think moving a bunch of articles to use parenthetical state disambiguation is a good way to "avoid comma drama" compared to the usual comma-separated state disambiguation? What brought that on? Is there a discussion some place that suggested this approach? Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the copyright note is on the image
(http://www.amazon.com/Peacemonger-Coexist-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B002MAJ5GG)
of the popular sticker being sold on Amazon. In fact all the images of the most popular
sticker (this one) includes the copyright note. The image is an extremely reliable source of information
about the copyright. The copyright note on the sticker is an official declaration of the copyright.
The note is there on every single sticker by Peacemonger. If you have it on you car,
take a look.
Yikes - you're really stretching my memory here. Even after going back to the Talk:Lorca, Spain discussion, I can't figure it out. I would've thought my plan was to put this special redirect on the Lorca page to see who was going from there to the poet versus the town, but I don't see any evidence that I did that. At this point, G6 sounds like a fine idea.... Dohn joe (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dohn joe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
"The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded."
"Some examples of international standards include: Diseases—The World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)"
The ICD-10 classification is "Intentional production or feigning of symptoms or disabilities, either physical or psychological [factitious disorder]" - see http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en#/F68.1 and the DSM-5 classification is "Factitious Disorder DSM-5 300.19 (F68.10). The latest article at Medscape is titled "Factitious Disorder Imposed on Self (Munchausen's Syndrome)", reflecting the modern name, which is now preferred to "Munchausen's syndrome". You can see other examples of this updating in the recent references in the article. I know this doesn't sit well with what we do in other fields, but in medical articles, using the modern, scientific name is uncontroversial. You could save us all from further effort by a self-revert. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Dohn joe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
What happened? Why are so many editors giving weight to pure dictionary meanings of terms that don't even have coverage on WP when determining primary topic? --В²C☎21:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's one expression of anti-primarytopic feelings. It feels WP:ASTONISHing to some people that some obscure topic could be a primarytopic over an everyday word. I've argued a number of times that use of a word as a word has no bearing on primarytopic, and that position wins more than it loses. Ultimately, I think that's all one can do: make your best argument and hope it carries the day more often than not. Dohn joe (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dohn joe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Dohn joe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey In ictu - long time no chat. Any thoughts on updating your !vote at Talk:Ned_Zelić#Requested_move_3_June_2019, given the news that Australia does not allow diacritics? Would seem to be analogous (and even a stronger case) than at Talk: Zydrunas Ilgauskas where you altered your position after the citizenship issue arose. Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
was simple. In a similar previous RM, you changed your !vote when new information about citizenship came out. I wasn't sure if you had seen the new information here, so I pinged you. Dohn joe (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ultraviolet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Regarding the likes of Talk:Parachutes (Coldplay album)#Requested move, Talk:Postcards (disambiguation) and more recently Talk:Worcester#Requested move 29 July 2020 you seem to drastically discount page views for plural forms from the quote that (it appears you originally proposed) about readers and editors being used seeing articles at the singular and thus searching/linking with the plural but couldn't that easily apply to US settlements as they are nearly always at "Name, State" so readers and editors are likely to pick that up quickly as well. It was also pointed out in the Parachutes discussion that there were quite a few mislinks and the qualified title had many links to meaning editors were expecting it to be at "Parachutes (album)" anyway. I have also produced a list of mislinks at User:Crouch, Swale/NC v PT#Examples of incoming links that show that editors expect settlements in England to be at "Name" much more that settlements in England as can be seen from the number of mislinks v the population. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Crouch, Swale - I'm not sure exactly the question, but I think both PLURALPT and USPLACE reflect current WP usage and guidance. I do think that when you have a bunch more pageviews for a plural form than its singular, that's pretty good evidence that there might be a separate primarytopic. But it's all for Wikipedians to discuss and come to consensus. Same with USPLACE - people are used to seeing City, State in the US, but that doesn't mean that a US city can't also have the basename point to it when pageviews and other evidence agree. Sorry if I'm not answering your exact question - please feel free to restate it and I'll try again! :) Dohn joe (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The exact question was if the argument that readers and editors being used to seeing singular titles can also apply to USPLACE namely "because readers and editors are used to seeing US cities with the state they can be expected to search/link to them with the state". But indeed like plural forms US cities are never PTMs for the "City" name alone though the it was argued here and here (and elsewhere) that the topic that uses a title directly is generally default. With Lifeforms, Parachutes, Bookends and Peanuts surely it would have been better to argue that there was no primary topic for the plural form (which is what I would have done) and with Peanuts the comic strip only gets around half views[[19]] of the nut and there is other media called "Peanuts". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that is one of the justifications for USPLACE. But overall, the point is we take any formulation (singular, plural, adjective, "City", "City, State") and consider it separately for primarytopic purposes. So the primarytopic for both "Nashville" and "Nashville, Tennessee" is the city in Tennessee, but there are separate primarytopics for "Phoenix" and "Phoenix, Arizona". Same with plurals - the primarytopic for "lifeform" and "lifeforms" has been judged to be the same, while there are separate primarytopics for "peanut" and "peanuts". This is why we have primaryredirects. I think that system works well overall, and gets our readers and editors where they intend most of the time. Dohn joe (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I do have to say that having the DAB at the base name seems like the best compromise between the criteria and principal of least astonishment but for the record I retargeted Ushers to Usher (occupation) as like Oranges it seems like the plural isn't really ambiguous as other than subtopics of the occupation the only other uses appears to be the Ushers, New York redirect. It does still seem though like having neither the musician or occupation as primary for the singular is best though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well its perhaps more common than might be thought that a plural form may be unambiguous or at least primary even the singular is primary, normally from one of the major meaning not having a plural form but in this case its simply because the musician is "Usher" not "Ushers" just like the film would probably not prevent the vehicle being at Car though since "Car" is in the context arguably simpler it may have a weak claim. An important point about WP:SMALLDETAILS is often there will be 2 (or more) variants of a word etc (that are anyway often combined on a single DAB page per WP:DABCOMBINE) and 1 of the articles will have a claim to both forms and another will only have a claim to 1 for example both the sport and insect are clearly ambiguous with Cricket (singular) but only the insect is ambiguous with Crickets (plural). When it comes down to capitalization and diacritics many readers won't bother to capitalize and English speakers are very unlikely to include diacritics when searching so unless at least the 2nd criteria is satisfied normally we shouldn't rely on the absence of such details to distinguish (but anyone who does bother will likely be looking for a distinct topic) for example Talk:George Puscas (sports writer)#Requested move 1 December 2019 where the person with the diacritic is over 141x as popular as the person without diacritics so if the move had have taken place we would probably have sent almost 141 people to the wrong article for the benefit of 1 and unlike Rum v Rùm or Talk:Man bites dog#Requested move 28 November 2019 there is probably not enough evidence for the 2nd criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alexandermcnabb and User:Shirt58 - I was very confused when I got the note about the speedy deletion of this article. I don't recall creating it. The snippet that is still available on a google search, about being a Ugandan fighter, sounds completely foreign. Is it possible somebody used my account ten years ago to create a page? This feels concerning.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Do you not think that in this case its better to have a DAB given the principal of least astonishment and the points I recently made here that globally readers would be better served with a DAB? Along those lines would have you supported this RM even though you opposed to it in 2012. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
![[14]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/dfs56w346436w3bcsa7.jpg/){kind=link}