User talk:Noetica: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:53, 21 November 2009

I'll reply to your message here; if I post at your talkpage, I'll watch for a reply there.

Noetica's Awesome Wikipedian day is 27 April.

This user is a Reference desk regular.

Archive 1: everything before July 2007

Archive 2: July to November 2007

Archive 3: December 2007 to December 2008

Recent edits to Apostrophe

I just wanted to say I like your recent edits, they really improved the flow. And it's interesting that a pair of sticklers for English grammar like us both speak French. Not a contradiction, though - I firmly believe that people don't fully understand their own language until they learn a foreign language. Anyway, félicitations, beau travail! Awien (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci bien, Awien. Je fais ce que je puis, mais il y a toujours quelque chose de nouveau qu'il faut mettre en place. I agree about learning other languages. I'm always at it, and whatever I learn helps to enrich my understanding of English – and so much more, of course.

You are welcome here. Come again!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r^c 21:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newish Year Greetings.

A Happy New Year to you too, Noetica! I have been in holiday mode for the past couple of weeks, and was quite delighted to find your message when I finally crawled out of hibernation. May your path also be illuminated. Gwinva (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

See the search box, below? Copy the code for it to anywhere you like (as I did), and modify it as you will. Makes searching easy.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! A very handy device. Gwinva (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization (given names, surnames, domestic name order, thorn)

I would like to alphabetize the entries in each of the subsections of Esperantist#Lists of famous Esperantists, but I am unsure of whether to decide the order according to given names or surnames. Also, Kálmán Kalocsay is in Hungarian name order Kalocsay Kálmán. Also, Þórbergur Þórðarson begins with the letter thorn. I am unsure of how to alphabetize those two Esperantists' names. I consulted the following pages but did not find an answer to any of my questions.

What do you advise me to do, and which page(s) (if any) has/have the answers?
-- Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised good questions, Wavelength. I find these matters hardly addressed at all in WP's guidelines, even though there is a great deal of attention paid to lists of various sorts, and we even have featured lists (like featured article). That omission needs to be addressed systematically.

The best article for alphabetical order is Collation. See the whole, but especially the section Collation#Alphabetical_order, where some of your specific concerns are dealt with. I have also checked New Hart's Rules, and after some reflection I would answer your questions, and some other possible ones, specifically like this (bearing in mind that your list keeps the conventional English order of elements within each name):

Order by surname, regardless of where the surname occurs among the elements of a name.
Use the conventional English adaptation in the order of elements, which sometimes matches the original language's order (Mao Zedong) and sometimes alters it (Béla Bartók).
Use the most common standard English transliteration or variant where foreign characters occur. (I have just now made redirects from Thorbergur Thortharson and Thortharson to Þórbergur Þórðarson, by the way. And I advise a move to Thorbergur Thortharson.)
Generally ignore de, von, van and the like in determining alphabetical order, unless they are fixed to the name without spaces (as in Degas, Vanderbilt, d'Alembert, l'Anglais) or are conventionally treated as an essential part of the surname (as in McDonnell, O'Connor). French le and la, often capitalised in French names, are considered in alphabetising (so Delacroix precedes La Croix). When a prefix is naturalised in English (as in De Quincey, inconsistently spelt with de or De at our article; and Walter de la Mare, name of an English poet), alphabetisation should begin at that prefix.
Treat Mc as if it were spelt Mac.
Use other conventions that might be laid out at Collation.
Allow for conventional exceptions (such as Charles de Gaulle, alphabetised on de; mentioned specifically at CMOS).

So:

Karen Attwood
Étienne d'Angers
Annette Davidson
Charles de Gaulle
Walter John de la Mare
Thomas De Quincey
Ernő Dohnányi
Antoine de Gascogne
Julien Offray de La Mettrie
Yves La Roche
Jean de La Rochelle
Jean Le Maingre
Jean-Marie Le Pen
Craig McCulloch
Avril MacIntyre
Mao Zedong
John Mountford
Thor Rasmussen
Thorbergur Thortharson

I hope that helps. If you want more, let me know.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answers. I suppose that I am ready to do the alphabetization now, with the edit summary containing a permanent link to this talk page, and with the text "section 4". (I consider it to be likely that some editor in the future will see the new orderings, and will change some of them to more "correct" orderings.) I would like to introduce at WT:MOS essentially the same message that I have here (my first message in this section), possibly with a link to this discussion. However, I want to respect your wishes not to participate at WP:MOS or WT:MOS. Also, I am unsure about what might constitute participation by proxy, and what your thoughts are about that. Therefore, I am awaiting your comments on those matters before I proceed with the alphabetization, or with a possible discussion at WT:MOS.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, Wavelength. If you want to link this discussion at WT:MOS go right ahead. Or you could put the text of it in a navbox and paste it directly onto the page there:

Something like that. I think navboxes should be used a lot more. They certainly can keep things orderly. Don't hesitate to come back here for more technical discussion as needed. I have a few resources to consult, and the topic interests me.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've refined and corrected things a little in my post above.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the alphabetization of Esperantist#Lists of famous Esperantists. Ba Jin (listed at Esperantist#Writers) is a pseudonym, which I alphabetized at Ba. Pope John Paul II (listed at Esperantist#Others) is a titled name, which I alphabetized at John. This reminds me of Cardinal, which is used as a middle name/title. It also reminds me of Esquire, which is mentioned last in a name (or maybe I should say "mentioned after a name").

Some telephone directories have all Mc and Mac (and maybe M' ) names in a section between the L section and the M section. Also, Mackenzie (with a lowercase k) could be analyzed as being in the M section, rather than in the section for Mc and Mac. Several Mac names have two forms which differ only as to the capitalization of the next letter.

In my previous work on Wikipedia, I have listed items in ASCII-code order, with numerals before letters. If numerals are ordered as the words they represent, then there is ambiguity with 1492, which could be read as "one thousand four hundred ninety-two" or as "fourteen (hundred) nineteen-two", and likewise with 2009. See User:Wavelength/Articles started, sections 2 to 7.

Recently, when I added M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) to List of environmental lawsuits, I left the order as I had arranged it before, but I noticed another problem: the new entry differed from another one (M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath) in the spacing of the initials. Perhaps one is right and one is wrong, according to a guideline somewhere on Wikipedia.

(All of this is giving me images of crazy quilting.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand your experiencing the crazy-quilting effect. I have edited the lists on the page myself. I do urge a move of Þórbergur Þórðarson to Thorbergur Thortharson; and even without that move, Thorbergur Thortharson would be much better for standard English usage, as in these lists. Such an adaptation is quite normal. We don't refer to Thor Heyerdahl as "Þór", or whatever the original form would be! I have also fixed some punctuation, capitalisation, and the like. The Esperanto word Internacio is best translated as International (SOED, "international": [B. n'] 3 (I-.) Any of various socialist organizations founded for the worldwide promotion of socialism or Communism; spec. = First International, Second International, Third International, Fourth International below. Also, a member of any of these organizations. L19.).

One entry was an error, due to confusion with an almost exact namesake. I removed it (see edit summaries). There are articles for several Russians with that same surname, as opposed to first given name and also surname; and while there is a disambiguation page there is not, so far, a DAB tag at the top of every affected page.

Language and languages were not designed for strictly rational collation such as alphabetising. We do the best we can, in an imperfect universe. I think we have it sorted out well enough this time. The larger matter of making WP guidelines to deal adequately with alphabetising is separate and more problematic.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noetic

Just letting you know you are very close to WP:3RR on the Noetic Consciousness article. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O, thank you so much! It is obvious that I have no idea what I'm doing, right? For your convenience I reproduce my last addition at Talk:Noetic_Consciousness:

LM, not only are you refusing to step back and look at weighty new evidence when it comes your way, you have accused me of bad faith in an edit summary when I offer it! You have restored faulty spelling that you introduced (it does not occur in the source you cite), even though I corrected and explained that error above. Invited to consider what more authoritative sources might have to say on the matter, including the monumental 20-volume OED, your reflex is to restore your lesser sources, sloppily and incompetently misquoting them, and with some of the poorest wiki-markup I have seen in a long while. This article is a complete mess, and probably a good candidate for deletion. If you cannot recognise the hand of someone who knows how to fix things and who has volunteered to patch what can be patched in this barbed-wire canoe of an article, I'll let you have your petty way. For now.

Have a nice wikilife. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French grammar book

Hello Noetica, thanks for your help on the Reference Desk. I have a followup question: what would you recommend for a French grammar book? I have a Petit Robert, and Angr pointed me to the Dubois/Mitterand/Dauzat Dictionnaire d'Etymologie, which is very useful. But the only grammar book I have is from an undergraduate French class, and it is not as useful as I would like. Also, are there any good French composition books? I have an excellent one for Latin but I would also like to improve my French writing skills. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. Welcome to my quiet corner of WP. I haven't got any recent French grammar in my collection, and I don't immediately know what to recommend; but see below.

I have several full-size dictionaries, some much bigger than the usual single-volume bricks. I use Petit Robert a lot, but I hardly touch the hard copy. The CDROM (on my hard-drive, in fact) is incredibly useful; the searching is fine, apart from a certain fickleness that means you have to start from scratch more often than you should. I also have OED and SOED on my hard-drive, and I use these three a lot for cross-language research. I also have TLFi, which I hope you are familiar with online. It's about the best for truly serious historical and literary inquiry, but a bit unwieldy for casual use. Being obsessive about such things, I also have TLFi on my hard-drive, and the huge Diccionario de la lengua española (Real Academia Española), the Spanish equivalent. In hardcopy I have specialist dictionaries as well, including the wonderful Greimas dictionaries of Ancien Français and Moyen Français, and a big modern Larousse etymological thing, and so on. I have a large number of other languages covered, including all the Romance languages (yes, BIG dictionaries and grammars of Italian, Portuguese, Occitan, and Catalan).

As for grammars, I wish I had the current Grevisse; but I make do with the seventh edition, 1961. It's fine for my purposes, and I can supplement it with other things, or by online research, or by consulting a specialist (which I find I rarely need to do). I do a lot with early 15th-century French, and literature from then till about 1930, especially the French romantic and symbolist poets. I translate them, I mean: when I have the inclination and energy. You can explore the contents of Grevisse at Amazon. But that price! $US225 is a bit steep even for a fanatic like me; and I'd have to pay postage to Australia. It's a bit cheaper at French Amazon. I'd buy from there, as I have before.

Other grammars I have: an old Grammaire Larousse (pretty good, readable); Ferrar's A French Reference Grammar (old, handy, quick to peruse); a bunch of strange specific guides to slang and the like, a thesaurus, etc.; and The Big Blue Book of French Verbs, McGrawHill. I have about six in that series. They're all much better than they sound, and have full reliable information, and copious well-chosen examples. And they're cheap! The Latin one (whose colour is for some reason gold) is superb.

I recommend that blue verb book to you; and also, get your hands on an old Grevisse if you can. Beyond that, there is a huge range on offer around the place. If you are contemplating anything in particular, point to it for me at Amazon and I'll give you my opinion, if you like.

Come back any time. And I'll see you at the RefDesk.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noetica. I have access to the OED too, through my university's library website. I've seen TLFi but I must need to change my fonts or something, because accented characters don't work there for me. I have the Greimas Old French dictionary and a couple of Old French grammars (in French, by De Lage, and English, by Einhorn). I will check out some of your suggestions, thanks! (Ha, what a strange coincidence, I was just responding to this as you wrote to notify me of it!) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to archived discussions of the Manual of Style

For your convenience, here are links to five discussions which I started because my corrections were challenged. They are listed in the order in which I started them. I understand from your past comments that you would be particularly interested in referring to the second and fourth.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wavelength. Handy for future reference. Don't hesitate to call on me for support, if such corrections are challenged again.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks in lists

I see you are adding some usefuk wikilinks, such as this edit here. However I'm slightly puzzled as to why the link is repeated. I thought we only linked the first instance on WP. Perhaps there is a special reason? Best. --Klein zach 03:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Kleinzach: in an ordinary article that is meant to be read continuously I would link only the first time (with some exceptions). But the article you point to is a list, yes? So it might be consulted only in part. I did hesitate, but this seemed like a reasonable policy. Imagine consulting such a list for a specific purpose, finding that something of interest was not linked, and then having to search to see if it was linked elsewhere.

I am of course happy to have such matters worked out by discussion. Is there a linking policy for lists? What is your response to the rationale I present above?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the series of (now 30-odd) lists of compositions and operas for some time so I know them well. The problem is that the number and frequency of repeated names, genres, places, theatres etc is infinitely variable, so it is difficult to replace the 'first instance only to be linked' rule with anything better or more flexible, that still makes clear sense to people. Some of these lists are longer than the Mozart. See for example List of operettas by Offenbach. As for a discussion venue, I'm not sure, but we could have a look if you wanted to pursue this. --Klein zach 11:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously more experienced than I am with lists at Wikipedia. But it seems to me that a list is a stark utilitarian resource, like a database. The main objection to duplicated links in ordinary articles is that the "sea of blue" makes for an unpleasant appearance and inefficient reading; but we have different expectations of a list, as I have said. The fact you mention – that equivalent terms take many forms – is a good reason for both standardisation and repetition. I did both, for a few articles, with Teatro Regio Ducal, which occurs in several forms. Ducale can take the standard Italian final -e; Regio-Ducal can occur with a hyphen (especially to our modern eyes, because it looks superficially like a "Franco-Prussian" construction, though it might equally have been Ducal-Regio); the order historically was often Regio Ducal Teatro, rather than the canonic modern Italian order. Consider the permutations!

Where to discuss? This should give us some ideas:

A quick scan through WP:LIST uncovers no explicit guideline for links, but the implication sometimes seems to be that entries consist in part of links. See also the many leads from WP:LINK, I suppose. When I have time I will scan through some of this. We could do some useful work on it, yes?

As you can see above I have been interested in the related topic of alphabetising, prompted by Wavelength. You may be interested in joining some discussion about that, too. See WT:MOS, where Wavelength has taken the issue up. It has not been given the attention it demands, I think. The information is as chaotically distributed as for linking in lists. See leads from Help:Sorting, for a start.

Best wishes.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the topic at this talk page also, since it came up in editing that article also.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the extra links in giant tables... especially if that particular column of the table is not sortable. It can be frustrating trying to scroll up and find the "blue link". DavidRF (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those additional wikilinks because that was the style already used in a large number of such tables and supported by WP:OVERLINK. I have no firm position in this matter. So far, the group of editors with whom I worked on articles, lists and tables decided to apply WP:OVERLINK, which seemed a safe and defendable position.

However, I now find this sentence at MOS:LINK: "Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own." This seems to say quite clearly that our previous position was wrong. I can live with that, if other editors agree with my reading of that guideline — although I don't think it warrants mass-editing all those lists and adding wikilinks for every instance of Metastasio.:-) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Linking every instance of the Théâtre des Bouffes Parisiens in List of operettas by Offenbach would seem to be massively overdoing it. Some of these lists would simply turn blue if we linked everything, but on the other hand linking a name twice that appears say in screen 3 and then in screen 10 seems sensible. The question is how to make a viable practice out of this. BTW the discussion page for this seems to be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links). --Klein zach 01:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well found, Michael B. So there is a guideline that advocates multiple linking of the sort I had wanted. But why do you say you "I don't think it warrants mass-editing all those lists and adding wikilinks for every instance of Metastasio"? That would be quite a task, surely; but what would warrant reverting such work? I can't see any problem with such linking, only advantages; nor, Kleinzach, can I see any problem with a list or a table should "simply turn blue"! Once more, the general rule against overlinking makes perfect sense for continuous prose in ordinary articles. But these are lists, and they function differently.

I hope there can be more input into this; but my inclination is now to go with the established guideline that Michael has unearthed. (So hard to find these things!) It appears that DavidRF would agree. Any arguments against, other than avoiding a sea of blue for the sake of avoiding a sea of blue? Why, in a list, is a sea of blue any worse than a sea of black? :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the short answer is legibility. ~~Also note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) doesn't say anything explicit about this.~~ I'm going to refer this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links). Can we all continue the discussion there? That would be appreciated. --Klein zach 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've struck out what I wrote above - I was confused by the reference to tables rather than lists. --Klein zach 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a list or a table, immediately accessible linking to further information trumps any marginal consideration of legibility. Marginal? Yes. Once more: a great deal of blue text scattered through running prose hinders reading, but I don't see how it can be a problem in a list or a table, which usually functions like a clearinghouse or an exchange, directing the enquirer to something that is sought. Many of our lists are already mainly blue – or blue interspersed with red. And they serve their purpose all the better for that.

Yes I agree: let's all adjourn to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links), and wrap things up here. Can someone initiate a discussion there? (I'm about to set out on a 500 km drive.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good trip! BTW, delighted to see you are going in kilometres! --Klein zach 03:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --Klein zach 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Kleinzach. Thanks. I'll join the discussion when I can.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant to say that if the outcome of this discussion is that it's OK to link repeatedly in lists & tables, then it's IMO not worth the effort (=doesn't warrant it) to go and link thousands of terms in them. I didn't mention "reverting" and I thought it had become clear that I now consider my previous revert of multiple wikilinks as not supported by guidelines. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart in Italy - Habsburg court

Re your copyedit: my reading is that Leopold offended the imperial court during his 1768 visit, hence the empress's harsh judgement on him. He may not directly have offended the Italian courts he visited between 1770 and 1773, though he may have irritated them. But they took their lead from the imperial court, and would not have employed him against the empress's judgement. I think the lead should reflect this, rather than saying that he offended the Italian Habsburg courts, which might be difficult to cite to a source. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks plausible, though in fact Leopold appears to have irritated all and sundry. I can't divine what the exact intention was in the lead, but we now see that it needs to be clarified for readers. Can you find a neat way to do that?

I am about to leave my usual place for a few days, and unfortunately also my shelves of music resources. I will be online, though. I'll take a couple of key resources with me, and try to help things along to a satisfactory conclusion at the FAC.

Best wishes!–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to the sources, we know (from her letter) that Leopold's behaviour displeased the empress. Exactly why is a matter of surmise, hence the conjectural tone in the body of the article. But her displeasure was real, and would have been communicated to her satellite Italian courts. There is no evidence that Leopold offended these courts directly. So I have simplified the lead statement - Leopold's persistent efforts "displeased the imperial court". "Displeasure" rather than "offence" is the word used in the sources. I think that summaries the position accurately; the detail remains in the main article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My doubts [sections in biography articles]

Hi Noetica, can you clear up something for me please? I'm coming across biographical articles with "biography" as a section header, then subsections of what used to be the main sections. E.g., ==Biography== followed by ===Early life=== ===Career=== sometimes right through the article. It seems redundant and to multiply sub and sub-sub sections. If the article already is a biography and the header is the article name, why this? I thought this was not MOS, but maybe that's changed. Having trouble finding it though, thanks for any help, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Julia! The matter of biography sections in so-called biographical articles came up recently at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, which I watch closely and have copyedited recently. See this exchange in talk, where I outline my own approach. Please note the link to WP:MOSBIO, and how the matter has not been subjected to much discussion at all. I'd be interested to know your more considered opinion, once you've examined the arguments. Mine (so far) remains this: if an article is more than a pure biography, it is not simply a "biographical" article; in that case it is a good idea to corral all the biographical material in one large section, as in the Mozart article. In some cases, I believe, we do treat the biography of the subject in a separate, dedicated article. In such dedicated articles there should be no section headed Biography. An example is the rather strangely titled Isaac Newton's early life and achievements. Compare the main article Isaac Newton, in which the perfectly defensible heading Biography accounts for a minority of the article. (Which articles did you have in mind?)

Best wishes.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it was in smaller articles where the Early life etc would go well enough, but seeming Biography was there because someone didn't bother to break it down, such as an actor or musician or theorist. Example is this one[1] which I then changed. That is a strange title, is it making a section the whole thing?! With someone like Mozart or Picasso, the life is so turgid and far-reaching that it needs teasing out for sure. With others, I've found people have possibly decided it's too hard to filter one area of the life from the work, say, or love life from the timeline of travel and achievements. "Biography" does seem a strange header to me that is, in an article which is a "biography" – a bit like restating the subject in side heads, or suggesting there's the life and then something else. Imagining I'm a person coming to the pedia for information, I'd look for pointers like early life, significance (work, achievements, views, controversies, influences, legacy etc), later years and death for a quick size-up. Am I being simplistic? I will go through the links and get back to you. Appreciate your answers, Julia Rossi (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse an uninvited opinion - I was involved in another discussion above - but I've removed 'Biography' headings from biographical articles on occasion, so I'm interested. IMO with large articles like Mozart there is a good argument for grouping the 'life' sections (as opposed to works etc.) under a 'Biography' heading, but with most shorter articles 'Biography' is best avoided. --Klein zach 01:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever hesitate here, Kleinzach: you're very welcome! I do hope that you and Julia will take this matter up at WT:MOSBIO, where it needs to be addressed with more subtlety and consultation than it has had so far. I stay away from most MOS-talkpage discussions these days, after long and time-consuming involvement at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM. But I'll watch with interest, and I am always happy to discuss on users' talkpages.

I suspect that our three opinions converge, in fact. Short articles with less notable subjects don't need a separate "holding" section headed Biography; but a guideline against such headings should not be worded so that it covers long complex articles like Isaac Newton or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. They deal with much more than pure biography, and major divisions need to be marked. Right?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I came back to tack a bit on my last post and the indoor plant is a tree! Hi Kleinzach. Not that I'm a celebrity fan (yeah, yeah I know) but came across Liev Schreiber, another case and Naomi Watts a perfect example of a page with every thing a subsection to the title Biography. It's almost in the class of people who like to put loads of white space in the page. Maybe as you say Noetica, a holding section for the life and another for the notability garnering career, even, if possible not using "biography" but "life"? because to me, "biography" seems the tech term for the classification of a thing. Well, I will screw up my courage and visit the WT:MOSBIO and see what's going on. I find it internet-typical but also bewildering that a style manual is so fluctuating. Sometimes, even stressful because I don't like much changing other people's good faith edits. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (though I don't really like using 'Life' either), but I won't follow you to WT:MOSBIO. Too difficult: turning common sense into common practice . . . . Best. --Klein zach 06:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Well I've been there and have returned. [2] where I babbled on, killing the "Life" idea as well. Everything has numerous heads in this place though your timely aphorism is enough to keep me out of trouble. It goes on my computer screen right now. :) Thanks to both, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Julia, I'm not clear on what you want. What would you have in the case of the article Isaac Newton? At present there is a large section (but small enough in the whole article) headed Biography. This section is one of 14 in the article, and has subsections, one of which has a wikilink to a "main article": "Main article: Isaac Newton's early life and achievements". Your prescription, please? And for the Mozart article? And yours for those two, Kleinzach? (Even if you would not want your prescription to be a part of MOS, for some reason.) Here's my prescription:

If practically all of an article is devoted to the biography of its subject, no section of the article should be headed Biography, or Life. If only a part of an article is biographical in the strict sense, and if it has distinct divisions (Early life, Later years, for example), that part should be headed Biography.

Is that common sense, Kleinzach? I have seen no argument against it. But then, it takes more than rationality and common sense for a practice to become a guideline in our MOSpages.

Do we agree? If not, how not? Clarity is not enough (as a philosopher once entitled his book); but it's a bloody good start!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll respond to the blockquote. IMO readers don't normally need to be told that 'Early life', 'Later years' etc. are biographical. However there's the structural aspect. In the case of a long article it may be a good idea to have an extra heading level and in that case grouping the biographical/life sections together makes sense. Print editors would map out a publication in terms of A-heads, B-heads, C-heads etc. WP editors don't - hence the problem here. --Klein zach 12:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I suspected we do really agree. Whether anything above a certain level of woolly generality can be achieved at WP:MOSBIO without convening Vatican III is another matter. I regard the present guideline on this matter as absurdly ill-considered, and I do hope editors will not take it as gospel. There are deep and systematic problems with the MOSpages, as I know from my "tour of duty" there. Still, that's Wikipedia for you!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just saw this -- off to work now but will be back! :) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, another two bits: recently the Moors murderer Ian Brady article was all the heads under "Biography", though the rest pretty much as usual, so it's catching on. I guess I see "Biography" as like a magazine segment where eg, in Time Mag, there's an index, milestones and so on so people might go to the class of articles because it's print. Here it's a name, click Go and search, so I don't go via category:biographies because with the name I am looking for a person. I want to know the early life -- there it is and on I go... not wanting to scroll through personal life and death yet just how they kicked off and what they got their teeth into. For me, finding PL and death too early is like a woman's magazine (he had four wives! disowned his children! houses in eight countries!), or an obit. Conditioned, aren't I? So maybe it's not "what I want" but how I think, and what I'm used to is not too much overstating of what's there in a line of prioritised interest. That's why I would find Life unnecessary too. My head is already organised.

Even with a person like the ones who are recorded in history to the nth, with a pan-tech of information to break down, I feel early life is enough because even they start there, and career (with prodigies that's already begun) overlaps, but that's okay too. Say in Mozart, I'd kill biography, just start with early life and when the tours begin that's when his professional career does too, so career with the tours and years as subsets and let "Main article" links take care of the bulk. This is just discussion, so I hope it doesn't look like there's no other way, but this is the way of bios that I'm easiest with. When I first lookedd at MOS, it seemed to discourage too many subsection headings, favouring main heads over them, and not re-stating what is implied or actually in the article header. But that was about a year ago. -- Julia Rossi (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peeked at Newton, same thing really. Especially since the later heads are not subsections but stand on their own. It still works for me, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart: thanks

Thank you for your support and help in getting Mozart in Italy to Featured status. I appreciate your help in the effort to expand the encyclopeadia's featured classical music content. My next music project, for later this year, is likely to be List of operas by Richard Wagner, including not only those we know all about, but his many aborted projects, too. Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pleasure, Brian. Always a little difficult to negotiate the finer points in striving for excellence; there are bound to be different approaches. I think the result this time is just fine, and as I said at the FAC, I congratulate you! I look forward to more.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart family grand tour: capitalization of the title

As you've been involved in copyediting the Mozart article I wonder if you (and maybe Julia?) would like to give an opinion on the capitalization of this title? The discussion is here. --Klein zach 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaser APEC pranks

Thankyou for your review, it would be greatly appreciated if you would help copyedit the article. I believe I have fixed all the reference issues up. Thankyou in advanced. The Windler talk 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do just that, Windler – some time in the next three days. I'm away from my usual system just now.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. The Windler talk 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but saw the weather and wish you well in being near the aircon this weekend. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arghh! I know. I have postponed travel plans till Sunday, just because of the weather. Thank you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To take time out in your enormous 3 hour effort to copyedit The Chaser APEC pranks without any real obligation, but this is well deserved and appreiciated by all the editors of the article and all the random people who will read the article from your edits. Thankyou, The Windler talk 02:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For an excellent job in the copyediting of The Chaser APEC pranks, well appreciated. The Windler talk 02:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SW! I've now supported the article at the FAC.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky Signature

Thanks for the feedback on my signature, –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T–. I did just copy symbols from the list under "Symbols" in the edit function, so I am surprised that they don't read consistenlyt across all systems. I'll see if I can make improvements for tomorrow. ¤₳₳ BL ₵₳¤ (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this signature readable to your system? As far as the previous signature goes, could you see the letters "BL"? ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In both versions I see "BL" once, in the middle. In the earlier version it is flanked by two unknown characters on each side; in the later version, by one on each side.

Theoretically I could adjust the settings in my browser (the latest Firefox), and I might then see what you intend people to see. But that's no use, since many people use browsers even less finely configured than mine!

My advice is to keep it simple – despite my own strange signature. What result are you looking for? There might be another way to get it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a simple signature (change of Bielle to just BL) with a marker (not a letter) on either side to set it off. If you look on any editing page for the "Symbols" list, there is, mid-way along the line of symbols, a sort of stronger version of << >> after which there is a small square and then a taller rectangle. What I had originally was one of the squares and two rectangles on either side of the BL, creating a sideways overall diamond shape, the "BL" being the widest part of the diamond. My browser is MSE and not configured beyond the factory setting at all. I mistakenly thought if I could see it, then could all those bigger, better, faster browsers. The other objective was to keep the signature to only the symbols so there would not be lines and lines of code. While your signature is lovely to look at, it is a real interruption in reading diffs where it occurs, though yours is not the worst for that, by far. The only important part is that the "BL" be clear; the rest is just decoration and it really doesn't matter how it is read. I appreciate your comments. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)«»¤₳[reply]

I see! Sorry about my intrusive signature as it appears in the edit box. I might change it, in fact.

Now, those symbols like << >> are these ones: «». Right? They're guillemets. The French and a few others use them as we use quotation marks. The symbols that follow them look like this to you: ¤₳. Right? But to others like me they don't look like rectangles at all. The first is like a centred "o" with hands and feet set at 90 degrees from each other; and the second looks like an "A" with an extra line through it, to make a "=" with the standard line.

I think you do need to change your browser settings, since you must be having trouble reading many symbols that are used at Wikipedia. Why not ask at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing? They can help you better than I can. :)

By the way, some time ago I stole the rotating ball at your page:

Hope you don't mind; I find it very useful, especially in conversation with Gwinva. Just let me know when you need it back. (AND: Bielle is a great name!)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fascinated: you can't see what I see, but you can show me what I see while describing what you see using the "same" symbol. And you are quite right about what I see and what I intended. (I am pleased to learn about guillemets. I knew the symbols looked familiar but could not place them, which tells you how often I read French aside from menus and road signs.) Even thinking about going to the computing desk gives me knots in my stomach. The first thing they always advise is to get another browser, and then they begin speaking another language entirely. You are thoughtful to be concerned about symbols I must be misreading. So far, I haven't noticed any problems but, and this is a weighty "but", I don't read IPA or math or physics, so I am not sure where I might need to know. (In fact, my general ignorance is profound, which is why I spend so much time reading Wikipedia). As for the rotating ball, you are entirely welcome to use it. I copied it myself from User:Gaius Cornelius's RFA thank-you posts. I have seen some comments on the Ref Desks from Gwinva but have not yet had any conversations with her as far as I recall. I shall be careful to avoid same unless I am also armed with the whirling ball. Do you toss it at her, or is it just a useful distraction? My user name is from a real person; I wouldn't have been born without the help she gave my father when he was shot down over France in WWII. I do honour where I can. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, welcome to remain fascinated; but the explanation for my seeing what you did not see, and what I had not seen earlier, is quite simple. I am now using a different computer, with Firefox differently configured. NOW, though, I can't see the characters in your signature. Have you changed it yet again?

As for configuring your own browser, it should be easy enough. But it may be best to engage some enthusiastic young nerd locally, if you don't like the computer desk here.

It is not compulsory to deploy the whirling ball in dialogue with Gwinva, but it is considered good form.

I am glad that Bielle has a basis in the real world. We had no family friend by the name of Noetica; my people were always a bit iffy about Greek neuter plurals meaning "things of the intellect".

Call again, any time!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larousse defines the word bielle (a feminine noun) in French as "Pièce d'une machine, qui communique un mouvement." Larousse defines the same word in English as "tie-rod; crank-arm; bielle motrice, connecting-rod (mech.); bielle de soupape, valve push-rod."

Also, w:fr:Bielle is disambiguated to w:fr:Bielle (mécanique) and w:fr:Bielle (Pyrénées-Atlantiques).

There is also the Italian website http://www.bielle.org/, whose main theme seems to be music about rebellion against a capitalistic, militaristic society (according to the text scrolling from right to left).

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wavelength; I especially like the Italian organization. (I have copied this to my sandbox.) In my case, Bielle was a "pet name", short for Gabrielle. I am not sure what happened to the "r", but Bielle was certainly what she was called, and also how she signed her letters. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Huangshan, Broca's

Ah, yes, it's a wonderful place! I'm jealous you got to do it in the snow and mist...when I was there we had beautiful clear weather, but doing it in the snow would have been much more badass.

Glad to hear there's someone else who'll be working on neuro-y articles. It's easy for me to find things that need to be cleaned up, and then hard to find the time to actually do it ;). I'm hoping to get started on Broca's soon...right now my main project is Neurolinguistics, so if it's a topic you know anything about you're welcome to come take a look! Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youmils03

I'm going to assume the material you mounted at Youmils03 was some sort of test page; if you'd like to archive that material, I'll be happy to create a sandbox page in userspace for it, until you can determine an appropriate home. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Answered at User talk:Accounting4Taste.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Thanks for your response. I think you have everything under control and there's no need for me to insert myself; I figured it was something like a slip of the mouse, but wanted to hear from you to reassure myself that your account had not been hacked. Thanks for your time and trouble and I wish you the best with the troublesome user. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentalism

How did you know my car goes like a biga and not a quadriga? Btw, got to clean up the intro while I was there, :)) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takes one to know one. In fact, I drive one of those smaller bigas myself. Good work cleaning up random intros. More soon. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton's Blindness

I have no problem with the points you make at the talkpage. However, simply deleting the material at Anton's Blindness, and placing a redirect isn't very helpful, as it loses the article history. Just find an administrator to move it back, as then the article history will remain intact. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my initial move. H₂O Shipper 13:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W. No, there is no problem with deleting the material at Anton's Blindness. The entire text is available by clicking on earlier versions listed in the history. In this case, the text was essentially the same as what we now see at Anton-Babinski syndrome, anyway. Note these further sources of confusion or complexity:

There is a band called Anton's Blindness, and if you do a Google search on the phrase "Anton's Blindness", the great majority of hits are to do with it, not with any neurological syndrome (not directly, anyway: with some contemporary music you might wonder!).
There is a redirect also from Anton's blindness (lower-case b). If ever there is an article created for the band, these redirects will have to be sorted out. This illustrates the need for redirect pages to retain their own unredirected talk pages, for future developments.
There is a redirect also from Anton syndrome.

In fact, as I more or less point out at talk:Anton-Babinski syndrome, the best title for the present article would be Anton's syndrome, since that is clearly the most common name for that syndrome of cortical blindness with anosognosia and confabulation. And the title Anton-Babinski syndrome should be reserved for a new article on a separate syndrome, similarly characterised by anosognosia. I'll probably look after that myself, since I have the resources and some of the necessary expertise.

Best wishes to you!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:MOS search box

WT:MOS has a new search box. [3] -- Wavelength (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had noticed that. A good thing; every page of that sort should have one.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Like a dirndl, speaking Dutch for the very first time"

I sat here at my computer for about 10 seconds staring at your edit summary thinking: "I know it's a joke, and I know that rhythm but . . ." Are you inclined to finish the parody? Thanks for the chuckle. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give that dirndl in German is a diminutive of a word meaning "virgin" (in the "technical" sense, or in the original sense of "maiden"), and is derived in fact from Latin virgo, virgin- (as discussed at the Desk recently), I paraphrased the lyrics of Madonna's Like a Virgin (song) for my edit summary. The topic was certain English diminutive suffixes cognate with that German -l.

:)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did finally get there after those confusing first 10 seconds, but didn't know about the meaning or derivation of "dirndl". Thank you. You have a very interesting mind. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Away for a couple of days, because of sickness

Yes, a nasty virus. Can't eat, drink water (without dreadful consequences); dizzy. Well again soon, I'm sure. Gotta go! Back to bed.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take care, look after #1, get well, and don't worry about us. We'll muddle through without you - somehow. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinva (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart and Soul Music: Quality Music for Nursing Homes. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST talk page search box

The talk page of WP:LIST has a new search box. [4]. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A wikibreak

The illness I mention above morphed into a general aversion to Wikipedic involvement. Hence my silence. Right now I am away from fast internet access and occupied with other things. I expect to resume at least desultory engagement here in about a week.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, if I caused you to push yourself too much in your contributions to Wikipedia, please accept my apology. I am thinking of your description of me as your "learned and fiercely industrious rival in obsessiveness" [07:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)] at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 13#Rhyming dictionary made of paper. Later, you said: "As for the general points above, I am tempted to thud a few heavy theoretical resources down on the table, and join in some serious analysis. But I will not." [11:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)] at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 13#Norms of rhyme.

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 5#Sanskrit is alive (not dead); Sanskrit is a living language., you said to me: "So much work you put into these things! Too much, do you think?" [06:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)] and "I like the 'linkfarms' you make a habit of providing, but I worry about the amount of time they must take you to produce." [23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)].

I was very much impressed in a positive sense by your work at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 9#Numbers and Hyphenation, and it probably would have required more time from me than it did from you to prepare that information. [13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)] Some other contributions from you have been equally impressive.

It seems to me that, although we have some overlap in interests and abilities, each of us also has areas of more talent than the other one. It would be good if neither of us sensed a need to strive too hard, whether in competition or in cooperation.

I have been looking forward to working with you on a style guide subpage for collation, because, without your help, I would probably be left to pursue it alone or abandon my efforts. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dear colleague, thank you for getting in touch. I have been an unconscionable time dead to Wikipedia. Or apparently so: I do still keep a detached watch on developments.

Please do not feel that you are responsible for any of my present aboulia and listlessness. Apart from other concerns in life taking precedence for me now, I have found engagement at Wikipedia less satisfying than it used to be.

Yes, the work on lists is important. We would be good at it together, I'm sure; and we would both learn from the experience, which I regard as one of the best rewards available. But it would be an ordeal and a half – one that I am not prepared to endure at this stage.

I see that you have chosen not to allow contact by email. Myself, I do enable email: but I prefer to communicate with very few through that channel. Like you, I suspect, I prefer to seal off my wikilife from my life as an air-breather. In your case, though, I would be delighted to communicate, since I am sure that we can trust each other and that we have things to talk about. You know I admire enormously your ingenious and industrious work. I have told you so, I think.

Initiate contact with me if you want to. Otherwise, wait. I will probably be back sometime, when I have decided on the form and extent of my future involvement here.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your time in making your decisions. There is plenty to keep me busy, both on and off Wikipedia. That WT:LIST section has not been archived, and, if it becomes archived, I can copy the archived section to a new unarchived section.

You might find it beneficial to make lists, on paper, of the pages, activities, contributors, and experiences which you have found to be most satisfying, moderately satisfying, and least satisfying. That might help you decide your future involvement.

When you are ready to work on developing a set of guidelines on alphabetization and collation for editors to use on Wikipedia, you can leave a message at User talk:Wavelength/Sandbox 4/Alphabetization and collation, which is on my watchlist.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I edited my comment of 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC). -- Wavelength (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Please leave your message at the section "Fourth discussion". -- Wavelength (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it helpful to read (possibly re-read) Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great

and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. -- Wavelength (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might benefit from reading Dunbar's number (permanent link) and references 7 and 8. I accidentally discovered the "Rule of 150" on Amazon. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might gain useful insights by reading Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Realistically, doing so might influence you either to stay with Wikipedia or to leave. I am not trying to influence you to leave, but, if you do leave and if you start editing another Internet website, I for one would be interested to know what the website is. I might want to make a similar switch. Today, I saw huge changes made to the article Love at first sight and unconvincing explanations in the edit summaries. One person's "cleanup" is something else to another person.

When I started to edit Wikipedia, I was somewhat aware of problems related to different viewpoints about content. Therefore, I made most of my contributions by adding internal links in "See also" sections, and by compiling lists of links. However, those are susceptible to being challenged. An easy way to contribute might seem to be by correcting mistakes in spelling, punctuation, and so forth, especially where there is no difference of viewpoint about what is correct. However, if an article or a section of an article disappears, then such corrections to it are also lost. Deciding how best to invest time and effort in improving Wikipedia can be a challenge. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - The Missing Manual links to Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The manual was authored by User:John Broughton, who also created Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:AaronSw (Aaron Swartz) authored the article Who Writes Wikipedia? (Swartz 2006).

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Kamm authored the 2009 book The Wikipedia Revolution (subtitle: How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia) and Knowledge by consensus is Wikipedia's downfall | Opinion | The First Post, an online article in The First Post about Wikipedia:Consensus. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the ten-page paper "Scaling Consensus: Increasing Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance" at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/ForteBruckmanScalingConsensus.pdf. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I revised my last message. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Academic studies about Wikipedia has a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies, and both pages have information which may be helpful to you. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost sometimes reports on external studies about Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives has a search box. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three additional essays about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is succeeding, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia may or may not be failing. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays has a link to Wikipedia:About essay searching. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found Decision Making Techniques and Decision Making Skills - Mind Tools. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to The Wikipedia Manual of Style: A Study in Governance » Siolon. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help proofreading

I am working on a list and wanted to know if you would proofread the intro text for me? If available, I would appreciate your feedback. Regardless, thank you for your help on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kilbad, I have been absent from duty at Wikipedia for reasons that I regard as compelling enough. Can't help right now, but might later.

Best wishes to you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, I proofread the five paragraphs of the introduction and made three corrections. I might have changed "based on" to "on the basis of" or to "according to" and I might do so in the future after giving the matter more thought (some might consider such a change to be a sign of pedantry), but I left it in its two occurrences for the present time. You might wish to proofread the introduction in the future. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the fourth paragraph, removing "based on" in both occurrences. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electron PR request

Greetings! The article Electron has been posted for a second peer review. We have attempted to address all of the concerns that came up during the first FAC for this article. As you participated in this FAC and did not support the article's promotion to featured status, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look and see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't help right now, RJ. Other things on my mind, and I am therefore not active on Wikipedia for a while. Maybe later.

Best wishes to you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proofread the article soon after I saw the request. You might find errors which I missed or which were added after I proofread it.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Noetica's Day!

Noetica has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Noetica's day!
For your amazing contributions to our Language RefDesk,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Noetica!

Cheers,
bibliomaniac 1 5
02:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

A thousand thanks, Biblio! (Makes me feel a little guilty about my current wikibreak, for which there are good reasons, all the same. I will be back.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's reassuring. Sometimes we've been left waiting for you and your tomes on the French language to return, only to remember that you're on break. Hopefully the present clears up for you. bibliomaniac 15 The annual review... 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alert: "What's wrong with MOS"

I have some bad news: the possible demise of WP:MOS. You can find out more at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What's wrong with MOS (permanent link). This reminds me of Talk:Lists of environmental topics#New criteria for the lists of environmental topics and Talk:Lists of environmental topics#Reply to above section. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTrust

You may be interested in the following external links, which are related to the reliability of Wikipedia and of wikis in general.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-31/In the news#WikiTrust may be added to Wikipedia. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard space, em dash, en dash, and maybe more

That was excellent work done on the hard space! When I saw Category:Hyphen Luddites, I realized that similar work could be helpful in regard to the em dash and the en dash. However, I am by no means urging you to begin that task; rather, I am suggesting it as something that you might want to do if and when you are ready. Anyway, it might be good (for someone) to compile a list of all such entities and deal with them together for the best results. I am posting this message before I forget about it. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions:

A recording, a score, and a portrait

The same editor who created the aforementioned Category:Hyphen Luddites (which I dislike) has also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration/A recording, a score, and a portrait (which I like). Its purpose is explained at User:Durova/Recording score portrait. Apparently, likes and dislikes seldom (if ever) correspond completely between any two individual persons. High expectations (including mine) can lead to disappointments. Also, low expectations can lead to pleasant surprises. Anyway, I am mentioning this project because of your interest in classical music. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More successful argumentation

As someone whose patience has been tested by many difficult discussions, you can probably benefit by studying these 15 pages. All of us can improve in our thinking and communication skills, therefore we can all benefit by from frequent references (with links) to specific principles relevant to specific points of disagreement.

In the case of the book Straight and Crooked Thinking, I highly recommend that you visit the web page version of 15 October 2007 archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.246.dk/38tricks.html while you can, and that you download the web page to your computer and preserve a copy (or several copies) on paper. It would be even better if you could obtain a copy of the book itself.

In these matters, one does well to remember to have (despite the difficulties) an outlook of truth versus falsehood and of logic versus illogic, rather than an outlook of editors competing against each other. One assumes good faith, one tries to work with another editor (or with other editors) and with truth and logic, and one hopes that everyone is open-minded. If someone resists truth and logic to the point of self-embarrassment, can that be the fault of someone with only good intentions? (Every editor has a head and a heart.) You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink. You can lead a person to truth and logic, but you can not make that person think a certain way. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) .......... [I corrected my message. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Academic excellence

Ling Nut (permanent link here) has made these comments.

I would say that writing and research are hard work. I would love to say that writing and research are hard work. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that my idea of "hard work" is vastly different from many other editors' idea of what those words mean. The fundamental problem with Wikipedia – and it is a problem that our reliance on policies, guidelines and consensus only exacerbates – is that far too few Wikipedians understand the hard work involved in writing and researching well.

There is some relevant information in the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and the book Dumbest Generation.
In a global society which is collectively declining intellectually, physically, morally, and socially, and in which people often overestimate achievements of academic excellence, altruistic excellence, artistic excellence, and athletic excellence in themselves and in others, there is a challenge to find the gentle but effective means to bring people to an adequate awareness of the shocking realities.
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ---- [I revised my message. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Additional relevant information is available in a book which can be downloaded from the deliberate dumbing down of america {sic}. It was with some reluctance that I referred earlier (at 19:42, 8 June 2009) to another book, in whose title the adjective dumb has been used with the meaning "stupid". It is likewise with some reluctance at this time that I am referring to the website of a book in whose title dumb has been used as a verb. I do not wish to promote those usages. The author could have used the title Deliberately Making America Less Intelligent. (The German adjective dumm means "stupid" and the German adjective stumm means "dumb, silent".) -- Wavelength (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to an article about a book which describes a challenge to modern education and to society generally.

Unable to focus? Welcome to our distracted society's attention deficit -- Wavelength (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another review of the same book is linked to from the external links of the article Distraction. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complications with ly

In my searches for and removal of incorrectly used hyphens, I have encountered some constructions where I hesitated. I am listing the types here in no particular order, but I am numbering them for easy reference.

overly hyphenated with a following adjective, for example, overly hyphenated with dependent. I try to avoid the word overly but I understand that it has gained some degree of acceptance by dictionaries. I see three options: (a) removing the hyphen, (b) removing the ly and leaving the hyphen, and (c) removing both the ly and the hyphen.
similarly hyphenated with sized, and many more combinations from many adverbs and many adjectives. English has many combinations derived from adjective and noun, such as noble-minded and kind-hearted. Even though the second element in many of such constructions can also be used a verb, I understand these constructions to have been formed from their use as nouns. Nowadays, people speak of computer users resizing windows, but in the example I gave, I still regard sized as derived from the noun. I see two options: (a) removing the hyphen, and (b) removing the ly and leaving the hyphen.
early·to·mid·November in various hyphenations. Of course, separately mid takes a hyphen, but early does not. This is not quite a case of two hyphens, of which one is suspended. (Another construction has mid at the beginning: mid·to·late·August.)
an early·to·mid·19th·century event and a mid·19th·century event. (I have used an interpunct to represent an indeterminate or unspecified character which is either a space or a hyphen.)

I am interested to know what you may have to say about these constructions. Incidentally, guidelines for these situations could be added to the Manual of Style. It says: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here". There might be enough possible guidelines for a new subpage, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (hyphens)". -- Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, Wavelength. I'll deal with each of the cases you raise.

1. Overly

I too avoid this adverb, concerning which OED says: "Apart from O.E., Sc. and U.S. until the 20th cent., often regarded as an Americanism in the U.K." In fact, MOS includes it as contested vocabulary, so there is, as you pretty well suggest, the option of rewording to bring an article into conformity with MOS.

It is indeed an adverb (except in an obsolete adjectival sense; see the separate entry in OED). Is it like early? MOS says: "Some such dual-purpose words (like early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs, since they are not formed by addition of -ly to an independent current-English adjective." OED has two relevant headword listings for over: as an adjective, and as an adverb. OED derives overly from the adverb, and working strictly from our guideline, that might settle things: it is like early, and there should be a hyphen in an overly-concerned parent. But it could be argued the other way, using a different interpretation of our wording "formed by": However irrelevant the adjectival over might seem, that adjective does exist (unlike *ear, for early), and overly might be considered notionally "formed by" addition of -ly to it.

Beyond both lines of reasoning is the practical matter of clear unambiguous communication. Given the immutable sequence of words an overly·concerned parent (perhaps immutable because transcribed from speech, with me supplying the punctuation), I would favour an overly concerned parent. My ratio decidendi: The arguments for and against the hyphen are close to equal, so choose the way that adheres to the more general rule, given that there is no likelihood of misreading in modern English.

If I were free to change the words themselves, I would certainly prefer an over-concerned parent.

2. Similarly·sized + noun, etc.

As a preliminary, there is a subtle difference in meaning between similarly·sized dolls and similar·sized dolls. The difference is apparent from an example that uses a different participle (or adjective): similarly·formed dolls (dolls that have been formed in similar ways) as opposed to similar·formed dolls (dolls with similar forms). (Try shaped, too.) So sized itself can be interpreted with two distinct meanings: "having a size (n)"; and "having undergone a process of sizing (verb, gerund; but derived from the noun size)". Then again, the precise analysis of sizing, formed, minded, hearted, and their kind is a matter of one's theoretical orientation. It need not detain us more.

Now consider the case of similarly·sized dolls as a matter of practice, and try to apply our present guidelines. They plainly call for similarly sized dolls. If the words may be changed, however, I might well prefer similar-sized dolls, as a simpler expression of the probable meaning.

3. Early·to·mid·November

Mid has become strangely problematic for the sort of reason you adduce. ~~RL Trask, in the Penguin Guide to Punctuation, says that mid no longer needs a hyphen after it, but takes a space instead. Though I respect this eminent linguist's book, I disagree.~~ [Correction: It is the later Penguin book How to Punctuate that says that about mid. So does New Hart's Rules, along with its immediate precursor the Oxford Style Manual. Trask I take to task for other peccadilloes.–N] So do most style guides. But the best guides also call for reduction of the hyphenation that a strict application of the rules might bring. I echo that call; so I might favour early to mid- November, or some such compromise. (Controversial! But can you see the logic of it? Compare: It was in mid- to late August; and the mid- to late-August sales figures, as opposed to versions we would get "by the book": the mid-to-late-August-sales figures; or the mid-to-late-August sales figures, if mid-to-late-August is construed as coordinate with sales in modifying figures.) The details might depend on practice elsewhere in the text. I would not like to see guidelines on these unusual problems at MOS; they would dilute the core principles that we want to drive home (see below for my views on the level of detail at MOS).

4. An early·to·mid·19th·century event; a mid·19th·century event

Adapting the reasoning I present above, I might favour this form: an early- to mid-19th-century event (also a mid- to late-19th-century event); but certainly a mid-19th-century event.

You write:

Incidentally, guidelines for these situations could be added to the Manual of Style. It says: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here". There might be enough possible guidelines for a new subpage, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (hyphens)".

Well, I myself composed and inserted the proviso that you have just quoted from MOS. I do not favour a separate subpage. The politics and logistics make such things impractical, and editors consulting our guidelines are already led into a labyrinth. I want generally less detail at MOS (and subpages) than we have now; I want the guidelines to be theoretically well-founded [sic!], but practical (bearing in mind the dispositions and limitations of WP editors) and implementable and stable (bearing in mind the psychology and sociology of editors who form our guidelines). I also want the relevant content articles (like Apostrophe, Comma, Hyphen) to include improved, lucid surveys of pre-existing published guidelines, so that they can be systematically appealed to in MOS. We do this already to an extent, against some resistance. I would resist that resistance.

Much more could be said. But I will not say it here!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Noetica, for your helpful reply, over which I have pored several times. Now I have some supplementary comments, where the numbers correspond to the earlier numbers.

1. When I thought about the rendering an overly concerned parent (transcribed from speech), I wondered whether it would be good to insert [sic] after that sequence of words. More generally, I wondered about how far one might go in using that device, if one does not wish to endorse "incorrect" forms but also does not wish to impose personal preferences or a "national" variety of English. There seems to be an indistinct boundary.

2. An editor adding words to an article can simplify the work of a proofreader by avoiding ambiguous expressions, such as similarly·sized dolls. I made a decision about probable meaning in this instance.

3. About the third type of construction and your analysis of it, I have three comments.

(a) Language users tend to complicate analysis and regularity when they accumulate word strings before the words that those word strings modify, instead of leaving them after the modified words with all of the original prepositions and conjunctions.

(b) Innovative style setters might use those accumulative word-string adjectives with hyphens for the junctures at the lowest level, and en dashes for the junctures at the level above that, and something else for juncture(s) at any level(s) above that.

(c) Other editors may not perceive my choice of hyphenation when the flow of text is re-arranged at line breaks, so I might want to use hard hyphens. They may not be familiar with hanging (suspended) hyphens, or they may not perceive that they have been used in particular instances, so I might want to use hard spaces when I use suspended hyphens.

4. By your expression "I might favour this form", I understand that you might decide on a case-by-case basis. Also, I understand that you might not object if I followed a strict application of the rules.

Language has many irregularities and many ambiguities. (People speak about reasonableness, intuition, and common sense, but perspective is an individual phenomenon.) Language is not mathematics. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I respond to each of your points, preserving the original numbers (now added to my earlier reply, too).

1. There are several such indistinct boundaries in copyediting. I advise against adding "[sic]" after overly, which is after all widely accepted. Generally, I would add "[sic]" only:

where the reader would otherwise be uncertain whether the peculiarity was original or introduced; and
where the peculiarity is noteworthy in some relevant way, and is not signalled by any other means for the reader's attention.

2. Writers' poor practice is one of the main raisons d'être for editors. I am not sure what point you are making when you refer to "a proofreader". This is not a term I like to use; many use it to mean copyeditor, but I would reserve it for someone who merely checks for "mistranscriptions" or simple typos. See OED, at "proof, n.":

proof-read v. trans., to read (printer's proofs) and mark errors for correction; hence proof-read ppl. a.; proof-reader, one whose business is to read through printer's proofs and mark errors for correction; = reader 2b

The point about similar[ly]·sized dolls is extraordinarily subtle, and beyond the scope of most copyeditors, let alone proofreaders.

3. On your three comments:

(a) Yes, it is often better to avoid complex attributive modifiers. Punctuation struggles to keep up with such excesses, and it is often best to make the sentence more simple with predications instead.

(b) Some guides advocate en dashes for the level higher than hyphens, but there is no consensus about the details. CMOS is steadfastly against en dashes generally; ~~so its many devotees, and the devotees of its many derivatives, do not have this option available.~~ [Again my memory did not serve me well. On checking, I am reminded that CMOS does accept the en dash for use at a higher level than hyphens. It does not allow, or at least does not give examples of, en dashes with spaces on both sides – or of any "suspended" en dashes. Some derivatives of CMOS, I think, are even less adaptable; and in other ways, CMOS stands against the en dash.–N] For higher levels again, we are in even less charted territory. Rewrite, if that is acceptable; or make do creatively but cautiously with the more usual resources (compare what I propose above, with fewer hyphens than "by the book").

(c) In my earlier response to you I used the hard space judiciously, when I had to exhibit a hyphen with a following space. But we should not do that in ordinary editing. A hyphen with a space following is like a word with a space following: we do not strain to make the space visible if the word happens to fall at the end of a line! So: no hard space with suspended hyphens in standard use.

4. [First a pedantic point of usage, which you may not mind my making. I advise against on a ... basis. I nearly always find a redundancy in it. Why not simply case by case, instead of on a case-by-case basis?] When I wrote "I might favour this form" I was happy to be read in either (or both) of two ways:

I might decide ~~case-by-case~~case by case[Amended. See my next contribution, below.–N], whenever such a rare and specific problem arises.
I might come to such a decision more firmly and robustly, after more careful examination of the issues – and of related issues that need to be thought about at the same time.

As for your strict application of "the rules", I proffer two cautions:

The rules that we make are imperfect, conventional, and provisional. Some people can live with this as an inevitable fact of life, at Wikipedia and generally. Others are seriously unsettled by it. I advise you to live with it as an inevitable fact of life.
We can make ourselves egregiously unpopular if we impose such rules too relentlessly and draconianly on writers (and indeed, on readers). While I will accept being unpopular in the interest of some higher good, here there is no higher good than clear expression that does not draw attention to itself. The best editing is like invisible mending. Ars est celare artem.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your explanations and advice. For this present reply, I pondered very much what to say and how to say it. Using good judgement in making comments sometimes takes a lot of time. There is probably still room for improvement. The same numbers apply as before.

1. It seems to me that appropriate use of "[sic]" with quoted errors can improve a reader's opinion about the accuracy of Wikipedia. Also, it can help a later editor to avoid wrongly "correcting" the quoted text.

2. My point in referring to "a proofreader" was that a Wikipedian can simplify the work of another Wikipedian (one checking the text of the former one) by avoiding ambiguous expressions. The word proofreader is more familiar to me than the word copyeditor is, and until this discussion I have probably never studied both words closely in comparison with each other. In my efforts to learn more about how they differ, I consulted many resources, including the following.

proofreader - OneLook Dictionary Search and 13 dictionaries
copyeditor - OneLook Dictionary Search and 5 dictionaries
Copy editing: "Copy editing is done prior to the work of proofreaders, who handle documents before final publication."
Proof-reading: "Proofreading consists of reviewing any text, either hard copy on paper or electronic copy on a computer, and checking for typos and formatting errors."
Society for Editors and Proofreaders
Proofreader-Copyeditor: What is the difference between a proofreader and a copyeditor and other editors?
Category:Available proofreaders in Wikipedia
Category:Proofreaders Needed (currently inactive)
Category:Wikipedia copy editing
Wikipedia:How to copy-edit

3. —

4. I do not mind your making that point about usage. Maybe in a different discussion we can explore redundancy in more detail.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I preserve the numbers, which help keep order in our conversation.

1. Yes, more use of "[sic]" might have those good effects; but it might also mystify readers, distract them, or otherwise hinder communication. We have discussed the limitations of our conventional punctuation tool-kit, and the disproportionately complex tasks for which we must use it. Similarly with devices such as "[sic]": we must weigh one consideration against another. Remember that inline comments are available, for communicating with subsequent editors about peculiarities in the text; and these do not waylay the reader at all.

2. The meaning of proofreader is variable, as your research shows. But among most "in the trade", it means something quite different from copyeditor. Yes, there will always be overlap with such activities. A copyeditor will make amendments that are in the province of a proofreader, and vice versa. I like what our article Proof-reading says, just before the part that you have quoted: "The term proofreading is sometimes used incorrectly to refer to copy-editing. This is a separate activity, although there is some overlap between the two." (There is a sort of irony in that article's mixed use of proof-read* and proofread*, isn't there? It makes me feel better about my own slip with non-attributive case-by-case on this page, now fixed.)

3. –

4. We can freely make points to each other about usage. With other editors, we sometimes must restrain ourselves. And even nitpickers like us will find there are limits to what is worthwhile – limits we have not yet reached. Informational redundancy? Yes, another matter in which the effort to achieve balance is well spent.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Earlier in this section, I said that "language has many irregularities and many ambiguities" and that "language is not mathematics." For irregularity, there is the mathematical field known as chaos theory, and for ambiguity, there are fuzzy logic and fuzzy mathematics. Another related topic is volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, probably relevant to strategic plans for the future of Wikipedia. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Specific cases with ly

From User talk:Wavelength#MOS matters, I visited Diatonic and chromatic, where I wikified four expressions, and I posted a comment on that article's talk page. Later, I removed a hyphen at Musical scale#Non-Western scales, producing "equally tempered". However, I had doubts about that change ~~when~~ after I saw the following:

Equal temperament, introduction, paragraph 3: "equally-tempered Bohlen-Pierce scale" [sic]
Equal temperament#General properties: "equal tempered scale" [sic]
Equal temperament#Comparison to just intonation: "equal tempered counterparts" [sic]
Equal temperament#Equal temperaments of non-octave intervals: "equal tempered version" [sic]

(I added "[sic]" for the benefit of other viewers of this page.)
Is there a conventional form of this expression as used by experts in the field of classical music?

I have checked the following articles listed at User talk:Wavelength#Hyphens and made some changes. The symbol "=" denotes an expression left unaltered. Where "most" or "more" is mentioned in my quotation, it is because I consider it to be more closely associated with the next word (if that word is an adverb) than the latter is with the next one after that.

Amanita phalloides (= "sickly-sweet")
Blue Whale (--> "fully grown")
Daspletosaurus (--> "similar-sized")
Dinosaur (--> "similar-sized")
Edmontosaurus (--> "lightly built"; = "most perfectly-known" [in quotation]; --> "fully grown")
Gorgosaurus (--> "similar-sized"; --> "more heavy-built" [in conformity with heavyset])
Hawksbill turtle (--> "newly emergent"; --> "dark-colored"; --> "closely related"; = "early-life stage E. imbricata")
History of biology (= "early- to mid-nineteenth century" [noun phrase])
Ring-tailed Lemur (= "early-high wail" [noun phrase])
Sea otter (--> "similar-sized")
Bratislava (= "fully-fledged" [in quotation])
Death Valley National Park (--> "early to mid- Mesozoic" [noun phrase], edit summary linking to previous discussion, "Complications with ly-")
Hamersley, Western Australia (--> "full-fledged")
Providence, Rhode Island (--> "comparable-sized")
Waterfall Gully, South Australia (--> "early to mid- 1800's" [noun phrase])
Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa ([2 instances] --> "early to mid- 2005", edit summary linking to previous discussion, "Complications with ly-")
Delrina (--> "early to mid- 1990s", edit summary linking to previous discussion, "Complications with ly-")

I found the following cases to be especially problematic, so I have not decided what to do with them.

18. Iguanodon "At one point, Jack Horner suggested, based mostly on skull features, that hadrosaurids actually formed two more distantly-related groups, ..."

19. Blyth, Northumberland "the 18th and early-19th centuries" [noun phrase]

20. Sale, Greater Manchester "early-5th century"; "early-19th century"; "early-20th century"; "early-19th century" [all noun phrases]

21. Shuttle-Mir Program "newly-fledged Russian government" [noun phrase]

22. Johannes Kepler "the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries" [noun phrase] (Incidentally, "the early 21st century" occurs later in the same sentence.); "early-modern astronomy"

~~When I read your~~ Your comment about nitpickers~~, I remembered~~ reminded me of the articles Floccinaucinihilipilification and Proofreading (biology).
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressions like early·20th·century for early part of the 20th century remind me of the Latin adjectives summus, medius, and īnfimus. ([5], p. 2) -- Wavelength (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, all of that is quite tempting; but I must resist getting absorbed in it for a while, because I have too much else to do in what we are pleased to call the world. I'll try to get back to you in a few days.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another problematic case is Tlaxcala, subsection "Industry and commerce", paragraph 2, "individually- or family-owned enterprises".
-- Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed established editors group

Hi. Just to say I've nominated you for the proposed Established Editors group. Don't know if you interested? Regards. --Klein zach 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you, Kleinzach. I remember your work and respect it. I have been reviewing how I want to engage with Wikipedia for some months now, and I really must settle things soon! I have looked at the proposal, and it appeals to me. I'll get back to you as soon as I reasonably can.

Meanwhile, may I commend the experienced and prodigiously diligent User:Wavelength for your consideration also? (See the preceding section here.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also for the compliment. The idea, at least to begin with, is to gather content editors with a minimum of two years experience. This might change but unfortunately at the moment User:Wavelength doesn't seem to qualify. --Klein zach 09:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O, but Wavelength does qualify. See Jfdwolff welcoming Wavelength in 2005. Like many others, Wavelength did not bother with an actual user page till well after the talkpage had been established. More later.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've nominated Wavelength. --Klein zach 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, thank you for recommending me. Kleinzach, thank you for nominating me. The group has been aborted.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Projects for checking texts and images

Here are 16 projects for checking texts and images. (I do not know which projects are already familar to you.)

Wikipedia:Cleanup
Wikipedia:Typo Team
Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check (added 04:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes
Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience (believed to be inactive)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar
~~Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design~~
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media
Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors (currently inactive)
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading (currently inactive)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style
Wikipedia:WikiProject Punctuation (believed to be inactive)
~~Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography~~
Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions (believed to be inactive)

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking out two entries because they pertain to articles on topics related to graphic design and typography respectively, instead of pertaining to checking articles for errors or problems in graphic design and typography. (I suggest a clear bifurcation in naming WikiProjects, so that "Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography articles" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography checking", or some such names, can be more readily recognized.) Also, I am adding two entries. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia adminship

Category:Wikipedia adminship contains pages about being a Wikipedia administrator. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extension:LiquidThreads

You can read about a new discussion page system at Extension:LiquidThreads. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Wave is another discussion page system. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Statistics

I found Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Statistics while searching for something else. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found User:Pixelface/Unique editors of policies and guidelines while searching for it again. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film series numbering controversy

You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series#Requested_move - Robsinden (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flurry of edits at WP:MOSNUM

Hi Noetica,

I was polite as I could be at WP:MOSNUM talk. I am not interested in personal vendettas, certainly if they are taking place on my user talk page and yet have nothing to do with me (i.e. you and PMA). I simply requested to hold off editing these things while there is clearly no consensus; I said so in the appropriate place, and I left a talk message for PMA because he had made only one edit and I was not sure whether he was watching the page (the name is new to me). Since you had made several, as indeed has GregL and A. di M., all in good faith, I assumed you were watching the talk page and so the courtesy of telling you so was superfluous.

That all being said, if you and PMA have issues with each other, I would appreciate it if you keep them away from my talk page. Thank you. SimonTrew (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon. You are welcome at my talkpage, to discuss anything that may be of concern.

You write: "I simply requested to hold off editing these things while there is clearly no consensus." What things? Where was I doing anything beyond sorting out details that were in poor style, or obscure in their intent?

You might think you were being polite, but you seem not to appreciate the present struggles, and those of the recent past. It would be well to identify more clearly who edits from the hip and who is working with restraint and patience. If you have a problem with particular edits of mine, let me know. As I point out, mine have typically been minor fixes, like applying MOS style with dashes and quotation marks. And when there was something that looked even half-contentious, I did not edit but started a discussion. Then disruption began, when PMAnderson started up his old abusiveness and hair-trigger edits. I have no personal vendetta against PMA, and it is not "polite" of you to assume that I do! But he is acknowledged as standing against all that MOS is attempting to achieve. And I am firmly with the majority that seeks simply to make rational, stable, followable guidelines for the benefit of our editors, and ultimately for our readers.

While I have your attention, I draw it to this remark of yours at WT:MOS: "Personally I think it is best that the MoS keeps quiet on the matter or says, at often does, just be consistent within the article." Did you see what I wrote about consistency, though? Did you read and understand the point that consistency is undefined, for the topic in hand? The reason I undertook my conservative compromise editing of the guideline on possessives was that it could not be interpreted! Only on a superficial scan did it appear to offer any coherent guidance at all. I agree with you, largely: better for MOS to remain silent, than offer useless verbiage.

Frankly, it would be good to have a commitment to rational, detailed, focused discussion. Let's engage in that, rather than offering opinion on events we may not fully understand. If you do offer such opinion, expect consequences: people will use your talkpage, and others' talkpages, to sort out what they take to be a misunderstanding.

Meanwhile, please read Andy Walsh's post concerning the removal of restrictions from editors, inclusing PMAnderson. And remember: my own solitary initiative in that whole date-delinking saga was to call on ArbCom to address systemic issues at MOS, rather than deal punitively with editors. We see the results of their failing (so far) to address those issues.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is my third attempt at a reply, simply because I do not want to say anything except what I mean. Thank-you for your gracious, if implied, acceptance that I am also in good faith trying to make MOS better.

"These things", C'mon, don't play the silly ass. You know what I mean i.e. the flurry of edits. Remember, I put that on talk? Then put it on PMA's user talk? Then YOU replied to HIM on MY talk. The word "gooseberry" springs to mind. What things do you think I would mean? The flurry of edits of course. Don't play the goat here.

"Simply sorting out details &c": The problem is, your idea of what may be obscure &c may not be mine or others'. That is why it needs consensus. Regardless, as I clearly stated on the talk page of MOSNUM, any change to MOS affects millions of articles because, in theory, they all need to be re-checked against MOS. That is simply impossible if it is constantly changing, and getting GA or FA largely ends up with having a generous reviewer or catching it at the right time. That is quite frankly unacceptable and makes MOS worthless, and you do no good to it by continuing edits. I hope you looked at WP:OWNFEET where another started, and I continued, an essay stating that edits must stand on their own feet, i.e. you can't take one step back to take two forward. That does apply, I feel, to MOS as much as anything else; but for policies I would remove the statements about taking baby steps because, for end articles that is good, since the small edits each make a small but incremental improvement to the article without affecting others in anything but a positive way, but for meta-articles (i.e. policies and the like) it is probably better to get consensus and then make a larger change, since each small change requires editors to keep up with that change, then it changes again. And again. And again. And again.

I edited I think twenty or thirty articles today, some were full translations from French, some were minor typo edits. If I spot something not in accordance with MOS that is easily fixed, I change it. I am not, at that point, going to revise the entire article (though sometimes I take WP:BOLD and do so, and did so today at Cash Register completely reorganising the article to have it make a more natural flow, without changing a single word of it). The point is, if I do decide to check MOS and it is changing literally between edits that I make, how the hell do I make sense of it?

I don't see how you say that consistency is undefined. Consistency, by definition (and meta-definition), defines itself. An article is self-consistent if it is consistent in spelling (e.g. all British English or all US English), units of measure, how it quotes references, and so on. You can simply look at it and say yes that is consistent. If you see that commas are not used in the same way, that sometimes there are hyphens and sometimes en dashes, that sometimes it is in SI and sometimes in Imperial, that some dates are linked and others not, it is bloody obvious it is not consistent. As was said in the Lady Chatterley's Lover case about obscenity, when asked for a definition the judge said "I know it when I see it". If you want to define consistency, write an article (or, better, a thesis) on consistency. If not, let the word stand as everyone else knows it, when they see it. It is actually hard to see consistency but easy to see its opposite, inconsistency. Most of my wikignoming is making articles consistent; sometimes this actually means taking them farther away from MOS but consistency is better than some obscure rule, I think, especially if then making it also conform with MOS is a wholesale change, after consensus on a duscussion at the talk page (e.g. if changing reference style or deciding which system of units should be used in an article).

That is why it is sometimes better that MOS keeps silent on the matter; something that (not by me) you have been implicitly accused of not doing, i.e. you want it your way and you want that written in stone. I am not saying that is right or wrong, only the impression I get, not of your edits, but how others (one other) perceives your edits. Now, I am not going to get into a vendetta or personality dispute, I will just stick to the talk at convert template instead where we discuss practical problems in sorting the conversions in real articles, not this navel-gazing about what would be lovely in an ideal world. The fact is, the MOS must reflect how articles are actually written as much as it gives advice on how they should be written. I thought prescriptive grammar &c. went out about 1940.

I do not intend to read the ArbCom, because I am not concerned with personalities. I am concerned with making WP better.

Please excuse me for making this longer, but I haven't time to make it shorter. Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful though untrimmed reply, Simon. Let me make it explicit: I regard you as an editor of goodwill and competence, and I want to discuss more with you and collaborate with you. I am pressed for time: but you have not understood the point I would make about consistency. Soon I'll return to explain it, since it is of great importance to the maintenance of sound, stable guidelines at MOS. But also, my explaining that might make some more general point: how complex the pursuit of simplicity can be! You see that I am no superficial thinker, and I would not trouble you if I did not regard the issues as weighty, or you as worth talking to about them.

(I often sign with "best wishes", too!) Best wishes,

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS assistance

By all means. If you encounter any instance in which MOS endorses anything which is not English, or forbids sound English, do let me know, and I will be glad to help improve things. (Nor did I mean you; you are clearly deeply educated, and often sound; when you decide what's wrong with nineteenth-century as an adjective, do let me know that too. You may persuade me.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is clearer to you now, PMAnderson, that I never said there was anything wrong with nineteenth-century as an adjective. I use that form often; but not on Wikipedia, where a different form is preferred. We have guidelines to settle such quotidian matters so that we can then get on with what's more important. For some of us, what's more important will be the pursuit of clarity and concinnity, economy and force. Anyone with the capacity can turn his mind to such true questions of style once lesser questions are settled by that serviceable tool, a style guide. Shakespeare and Johnson are unaffected by the tidying that journeymen bring to their work: and Johnson performed that service for Shakespeare.

So it is not a question of our Manual of Style "forbidding sound English", but of guiding choice between variants where the matter is elementary and not relevant to style in any elevated sense. All style guides used by serious publishers do that: some do it well (though I find fault with almost all), and many do it poorly. They, and we at MOS, all have that single purpose.

Why an erudite soul should remain plunged in ignorance of these fundamentals, and act on that ignorance with such energy and persistence, is a great mystery of our time. The idea of you helping to serve that common purpose is striking and novel. Let me know if you ever truly decide to join our work, rather than doggedly pursuing sabotage at every opportunity. The less capable need us to provide unequivocal guidance (dare I say leadership?), not perpetual atavistic wrangling over mere rudiments.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! I wonder if this is one of the times when you are "often sound"? HWV258 01:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't say leadership; the last thing we need is more leading, (especially by those who don't know the terrain). Guiding a large encyclopedia is like broiling a small fish; best done by doing nothing.

Why an erudite soul should remain plunged in ignorance of these fundamentals? Because they ignore a much larger fundamental: this is a volunteer organization which anyone can edit - and which will not survive if it drives people away by insisting on trivialities. Both of us prefer nineteenth-century; if a third editor comes along who does, and xe is harassed by some munchkin, or denied GA, on the grounds that xe wrote nineteenth-century, xe is less likely to stay.

On these grounds, I believe much of MOS is actively harmful to the encyclopedia; if it merely guided, it would not be. Nor can we imitate the style guides of serious publishers with a MOS written by editors who don't know what an imperative is, or who believe that a preposition cannot be used to end a sentence with.

When you cease spending time on prohibiting sound English, and actually begin giving advice on clarity and force, do let me know. I shall be glad to support.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you are ready to respond to a clarion call to cooperative behaviour from one who is your intellectual equal, and your better in knowledge of how style guides work and why they necessarily guide rather merely survey, do let me know. On the other hand, if you are so ossified by age and old habit that no reasoned entreaty will penetrate your armour, don't bother me any more. And stay away from MOS, where – I regret having to say – you are a perpetual hindrance to the concerted efforts of editors whose motivation, unlike yours, is collegial and well-founded in reason.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation is simple; where two forms are both in common use, we should generally permit both for the sake of the encyclopedia. If you regard that as no reason, then we disagree - as we disagree about Shakespeare: if your argument were true, there would be no emended editions, which attempt to restore Shakespeare's usage from the botches of journeymen and the modernization of school-room printings alike. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your motivation is simplistic; we do allow two forms, in many cases. We bow to custom on spaced en dashes versus unspaced em dashes, for example. I detest unspaced em dashes; but I apply them for uniformity when an article is written that way.

Latitude has limits. Only an extremist wants just one way of doing everything; and only another extremist wants just any old way of doing everything. I am neither sort of extremist; you are the latter sort.

As for Shakespeare, you misunderstand. I don't say that Johnson's tinkerings were of enduring use; but Shakespeare survived them! In fact it is better to focus on the spelling and the punctuation (sparse, illogical, and inconsistent as "Shakespeare" had it: or rather, his pirates, transcribers, and printers had it). We do not read Shakespeare in "the original"; we read consistent, rationally edited versions, as we do with more modern literature as well. (I like the Avon Shakespeare series, myself.) We are not distracted by the chaotic textual practices of his time; nor, on Wikipedia, do we want to be distracted by the chaotic textual practices of our time. That is why we maintain a Manual of Style.

Now go and do something useful somewhere.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want "any old way" of doing anything. I am not arguing for long ss or double negatives - usages against which there is genuine consensus. But MOS doesn't do anything so useful as guide against them; it offers edicts, founded on nothing in particular, on usages, like this one, on which a literate anglophone can go either way - and may wish to go both ways in different places. Even a preference for one would be acceptable - accompanied by a reason, it might even be persuasive; but a command is useless and harmful.

As I said, when you find something to do that actually assists the clarity of the encyclopedia, let me know. In the meantime, most of the contributors don't know anything about your unnecessary "settlement" of quotidian matters, and the rest of us will be happy to be left alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilpul

What fineness of distinction have I missed? You say, not far above that you often use nineteenth-century, which I summarized as implying you approve it. How have I misrepresented you? If you fill in a few steps for us grosser intellects, I will make such amendment as seems necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the display of {{xt}}, and to create a template for bad examples.

I've made a proposal to change the behaviour of {{xt}} so that it uses underline and a tick mark instead of the different font, and to create a new template to mark incorrect examples. They'll look like this:

Write ✔five cats and thirty-two dogs or ✔5 cats and 32 dogs, not ~~✘five cats and 32 dogs~~.

Here's a sandbox showing how it will look like. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#An idea: markup for bad examples, if you're interested. --___A. di M. 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#An idea: markup for bad examples. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative memory

You can read about collaborative memory in the four-page article "Are two heads better than one?" at http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_15-editionID_89-ArticleID_491-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/dec02thompson.pdf. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[I corrected "part" to "page". -- Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 :::You are obviously more experienced than I am with lists at Wikipedia. But it seems to me that a list is a stark utilitarian resource, like a database. The main objection to duplicated links in ordinary articles is that the "sea of blue" makes for an unpleasant appearance and inefficient reading; but we have different expectations of a list, as I have said. The fact you mention&nbsp;– that equivalent terms take many forms&nbsp;– is a good reason for both standardisation and repetition. I did both, for a few articles, with [[Teatro Regio Ducal]], which occurs in several forms. ''Ducale'' can take the standard Italian final ''-e''; ''Regio-Ducal'' can occur with a hyphen (especially to our modern eyes, because it looks superficially like a "''Franco-Prussian''" construction, though it might equally have been ''Ducal-Regio''); the order historically was often ''Regio Ducal Teatro'', rather than the canonic modern Italian order. Consider the permutations!
 :::Where to discuss? This should give us some ideas:
-::::{{List navbox}}
 :::A quick scan through [[WP:LIST]] uncovers no explicit guideline for links, but the implication sometimes seems to be that entries ''consist'' in part of links. See also the many leads from [[WP:LINK]], I suppose. When I have time I will scan through some of this. We could do some useful work on it, yes?
 :::As you can see [[#Alphabetization_.28given_names.2C_surnames.2C_domestic_name_order.2C_thorn.29|above]] I have been interested in the related topic of alphabetising, prompted by [[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]]. You may be interested in joining some discussion about that, too. See [[WT:MOS]], where Wavelength has taken the issue up. It has not been given the attention it demands, I think. The information is as chaotically distributed as for linking in lists. See leads from [[Help:Sorting]], for a start.