User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 95

613:

being consistent with any style manual that I know of, but because the software seems to insist that Capitals and lower-case letters are two different things - for Caps, at least. I remember this from when I first started editing wiki, and how weird it was. I've gotten used to it, but it really is a problem, and not just on breed articles. I've seen capitalization fights over the names of musical works and so on. If WMF could address this somehow, we'd not only deescalate dozens of capitalization disputes (not all, but some) but also save massive bandwidth taken up by redirects from alternative capitalization. I'm not even sure where to start on this, but given your ability to spend more time online that I can, it may be something you are well-suited to investigate.

918:) and am quite happy to respect its styles – such as not hyphenating words like "south-east" – when I can understand them (I confess to being baffled by US rules about "which" versus "that"). My concern here is that the MOS currently gives guidance which simply can't be followed because "informal conventional name" is unclear. I have the same worry about capitalizing breed names. At least the enthusiasts for capitalizing the English names of birds could give clear guidance: follow one specific published list. There's no such simple source for breed names. "Capitalize only those words capitalized in normal running text" can be followed by virtually all editors. Guidance in the MOS should be clear. 628:

second is that the MediaWiki developers are generally very, very slow to change anything. I'm "subscribed" to several bugs in the MW development Bugzilla site, and many of them have been open for a decade, and simply never get fixed. The answer is typically "the next version of the parser should make this moot", but this rarely happens. Only a trivially small number of the bug fixes (much less additional feature requests) I've been tracking ever get resolved, other than being dismissed as not worth fixing, too hard to fix due to conflicts with other needs in the code, or some other excuse.

1172:

fighting over. As anyone with a linguistics background knows, the which/that distinction is largely a fiction of Elizabethan through Victorian high society, and wasn't regularly reflected in lower-class writing, so the "wrong" usage has been around for a very long time, and been used by plenty of popular writers of "classics", like Charles Dickens. I prefer to make the distinctions, and to observe who/whom distinction, etc., but avoid getting into protracted arguments about it. You can often return a week later and fix it in the course of a more substantive edit, and no one will notice.

2037: 31: 193:(and hmm, "an explicit movie about elderly sexuality in 1974 titled 'A ripple in time'".) In addition, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned Oxford Companion yields "in addition to his academic publications, a key role in the formation of New Archaeology group identity was the symposium organized in 1965 by Lewis and Sally Binford at the American Anthropological Association in Denver (Binford and Binford 1968...) 1991: 1945: 1899: 1853: 1807: 1688: 1528: 1482: 417: 196:. (Also he had six marriages, which is at least 3 or 4 too many, but I don't suppose you can put that in.) And from the 1996 edition "Lewis Binford and Sally Binford also conducted an analysis of variability in Mousterian chipped-stone artifacts; their work touched off heated debates that rage to this day. Although further research has undermined the findings of some ..." 539: 1259: 489: 331: 120: 708:

different rules, e.g. never or always capitalize those marked "o" ("official" breed name segments, capitalize by default) or "g" (generic segments, don't capitalize by default), and never capitalize "s" segements (species; if one needed to be capitalized, override it with "o"). This would be used as a meta-template, with a

1314: 627:

I wish it were that simple. The first problem is that the debate isn't really about article titles, but about usage generally, with article titles being one case, and usage in running article prose being the other; the only differences between these are a) initial letter, and b) disambiguation. The

221:

article, an interview, etc., just on first page of results. She's co-notable for all the notable work she's credited as doing with Lewis. He's the more famous of the two, but they're often referred to as a pair, like Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, or Marie & Pierre Curie. I don't know loads and

1423:

behavior by you both and Montanabw, and treating disputes as a form of sport/entertainment you collaborate to foster more of. I do at this point consider it unwise to "provide ammunition" – your words – to you, because of your battleground mentality, lack of a sense of humor, and proven trackrecord

1414:

It's called a sense of fucking humor. You and two other guys who hate my guts isn't a "very considerable resentment against" me, it just you taking things too personally. Get off my talk page unless you have something constructive to discuss, such as why you're pushing POV and anti-RS positions at

1171:

PS: On which/that (from post above): Just write proper English as you like. Most highly literate North American and Commonwealth readers follow the same pattern, and if someone from more of a high school English level reverts you (I get reverted on subjunctive all the time), just move on; not worth

839:

is "Defendant" (and we'd only capitalize it like that in titles of cases). There are lots of things in MOS I loathe, but #Compass_points isn't that troublesome to me. At worst it seems to generate unnecessary RM discussions sometimes, and some editwarring over "northeast" vs. "north-east" (I think

612:

Per the capitalization discussion (round 20,000) at the relevant MOS page, I did think of one thing that actually could be a way to deescalate this whole thing: As I stated there, the truth is that the real reason WP uses sentence case and not title case (like the rest of the world) is not due to it

1164:

I'm not sure that left any cases unaccounted for, and I just rattled that off, off the top of my head, so it's not that hard. That paragraph could be reworked into a checklist of bulleted rules in about 5 minutes. Each article should, in its infobox, have links to published breed standards. This

978:

just recently to do this, and if y'all won't settle for my alternative proposal there, it's surely just a matter of time, especially because I'll stop trying to head off any further decapitalization moves. I've done all I can to try to help you lot broker a compromise, but yous would rather fight,

940:

And where it is too "clear," some people will not accept a time for IAR - I dread the next round of "let's move American Quarter Horse" to "American quarter horse." At which point, I will no doubt spell out in full some variant of WTF! FFS! and start ripping my hair out! Frankly, I've had quite

296:

Saw your note on Women in Red. She looks fascinating. I had never heard of her. This blog, though probably not useable as a source gives a pretty detailed account of her life and the fact that Binford was only a small part of it. The whole controversy over François Bordes which later erupted gets a

983:

wall. You keep saying you're trying to follow the sources, but you're going about it in a cherry-picking manner, preferring only those that support the capitalization system you personally prefer, then switching to support those that help out your "friend" Jlan when he wants to argue the opposite

707:

would capitalized only the "S" in "St." and "J" in "Johns". But each field would have a CSS class, that could be operated on by custom user CSS and javascript. Parameters labeled "p" (proper names) would always be capitalized no matter what, but user scripts could be made to capitalize others by

687:

policy. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, because if the feature were added, WP couldn't install it without not only moving all articles that were differentiated only by capitalization to new titles (think 1,000 contentious RMs over which gets the undisambiguated name), but also somehow

973:

Well, that's precisely what's going to happen if you and Jlan and a handful of others don't stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either agree on a convention that doesn't sharply conflict with sources and with policy, or enough people are going to get fed up with it to just impose the

896:

We will never eliminate capitalization/capitalisation and ENGVAR fights on wiki. It is important though, to respect their origins. Some disputes, such as ENGVAR, usually can be resolved in a logical way - by showing respect to the people doing the actual work and the actual practice of actual

658:

Well, we disagree on a lot of things, but one thing no one can deny is that when you get your teeth into something, you presevere. Seems like poking WMF to fix a legitimate problem would be something you'd be good at. But is anyone actually incharge there?

1127:, and a section on the Cardigan variety) until there's reason to split, then treat it as a separate topic, noting in both cases that some registries differ on whether it's a full-status breed in it is own right, or a division of a breed, a subbreed. 1428:. Unless you and I have no choice but to communicate about something, in which case it should be done impersonally as if the other party were a machine, we need to not contact each other for any reason for at least a month. Same goes for you, 1217:

be done – if your "alternative proposal" is agreed, I hope you will write up the above at the appropriate MOS subpage. Is it worth the complexity? Not to me, but then I don't care about breed names, so now I'll leave it to those who do...

1398:

mentality. You must also be aware of the very considerable resentment against you in some areas. Please consider very carefully whether it is wise to provide ammunition to those who might at some point wish to express that resentment.

297:

whole new light, when you realize Sally had a pre-existing working relationship with him. There are also tons of people and places mentioned here that would help in locating sources about her. She definitely should have an article.

768:

Not my problem. I didn't create the complexity; it's inherent in the problem. I've offered a solution, and it would be functional. I may well implement it myself, and whether you choose it make use of it or not isn't my concern.

197: 194: 248:

My professor today, although I don't know his sources, says that she was far more influential than it appears, but a combination of old-fashioned sexism and the popularity of Lewis combined to keep her from many history books.

191: 984:

case, etc. Waste of time. There's nothing at all Procrustean about following extant policies and following the sources that are actually reliable about what the formal name of a breed is (the bodies that issued them).

1652: 1645: 1130:

Where is a separate breed with both a unique and derived name (e.g. Cymric vs Longhair Manx, and Himalayan vs. Longhair Siamese, and Exotic vs. Shorthair Persian), prefer the unique name if it is not uncommon (per

1157:

Do not rely on breed "encyclopedias" and other tertiary works, as they are prone to overcapitalization of all entries, as are all other forms of field guide, as a form as emphasis for easy visual scanning.

694:

and I had talked about before was a template-based one. It came up with regard to species common names, but could just as well be done for breed names. As a pseudocode example, we could have a template,

1138:

Where it just has two totally different names, "German Shepherd Dog" (yes, the dog people really insist on including "Dog") vs. "Alsatian", WP:COMMONNAME again, with perhaps a preference for WP:CONCISE.

813:. How is an editor supposed to know whether a phrase is an "informal conventional name"? This isn't an abstract issue; I encounter it all the time applied to the distribution of plants. Should I revert 1030:. Breed standards are issued by many organizations, which don't always agree on the name, let alone its style. (Thus as the title of a breed standard, the US Kennel Club has "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" 1165:

is very poorly implemented in most of the livestock categories vs. pet-animal categories, unfortunately. Name sourcing discussions may catalyze them to work on these articles to improve that. See

688:

prevent creation of any new ones in the interim, then roll it out. Otherwise it would result in database collisions, with two or more articles trying to occupy the same titles, in numerous cases.

1778: 2002: 1956: 1910: 1864: 1818: 1699: 1539: 1493: 974:

extant rules, which will be decapitalization across the board except for proper names like "American" and "Shetland". I'm basically personally responsible for derailing a motion at

819:

or not? I simply don't know. So we end up with completely inconsistent capitalization of compass points all over the place. The MOS must be useable by the great majority of editors.

2050: 343: 346:. I'm a moderately casual editor, and I've never opened an RfC before, so any guidance in the conduct and resolution of this event would be most appreciated. Thanks! 1154:

Do not rely upon capitalization in those written in foreign languages unless they have the same capitalization conventions as English (which many not be any at all).

187:

So that would establish notability at least? Curiously, before I looked at that link closely, I did a similar search of gbooks but without the quotation marks

2094: 2087: 446: 875:

Strange, when I hover over the "this edit" link above the "tool tip" shows what I meant, but clicking it goes to the wrong one; however, it was my error.

809:

Not wishing to take up yet more space on the MOS talk page, I thought I'd make a further point here. An example of guidance that just doesn't work is at

1119:

Where is a separate breed with its own name vs. a subbreed in a division ("Cardian Corgi", vs "Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)" or "Welsh Corgi, Cardigan", use

728:. People who hate having the species name appear after the breed name could even use the class attached to such a parameter to suppress its display. 1419:. See you back on the noticeboards, since you evidently won't stop. The only battleground mentality is yours. I have plenty of diffs demonstrating 1372:

Your behaviour in this wiki appears to be out of hand. Please, in your own interest, get a grip on yourself. You must be aware that remarks such as

1148:

For purposes of these tests, use only established national and international registries that cover more than one breed (i.e. notable organizations).

1112:

Where is a long vs. short name ("Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. "Cardigan Corgi"), WP:COMMONNAME, with perhaps a preference for the shorter version, per

1141:

Where a registry wants to include the species name, capitalizes as part of the former breed name, but a competing one does not, then don't do it.

881:

replaced "southern Texas" by "Southern Texas". How do I know if this is a "proper name" or what the MOS calls an "informal conventional name"?

1783: 442: 2182: 2144: 2106: 1998: 1952: 1906: 1860: 1814: 1695: 1664: 1626: 1588: 1535: 1489: 1283: 515: 510:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2181:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 2143:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 2105:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 1663:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 1625:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 1587:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 1282:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 2021: 1975: 1929: 1883: 1837: 1718: 1558: 1512: 941:

enough with just discussions about "Shetland Pony" versus "Shetland pony" (which seems a non issue, save in situations where we have a

2132: 2125: 1751: 1452: 1353: 1184: 996: 860: 781: 740: 640: 388: 234: 157: 97: 2178: 2140: 2102: 1660: 1622: 1584: 1279: 1042:

doesn't provide editors with practical guidance, unless you can link to a list of the "published breed standards" to be consulted.

511: 369: 835:"Defendant" change; "Defendent" is either a typo or a Briticism, and shouldn't be used in reference to a US legal case, where the 269:) 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Actually, this is better, an advanced WorldCat search by author, with all 55 publications listed. 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 501: 1404: 1102:

Where they use basically the same name but handle an adjective differently, "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. Welsh Corgi (Cardigan),

145:

Not right at hand. Have archaeology text books in a box somewhere. I wonder if anyone's written a biography book about her?

439:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 270: 1308: 1252: 482: 411: 1768: 1471:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

810: 1080:

Where 2+ breed standard bodies use the same name but capitalize it differently, use the less-capitalized version, per

1729: 188: 1791: 1400: 431:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

306: 38: 1026:

This has drifted a bit off my point, which was not whether your alternative proposal is "right" but whether it is

1169:'s infobox for a good one, that's pretty complete and annotates where registries don't allow it or reclassify it. 1395: 2177:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 2139:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 2101:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 1659:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 1621:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 1583:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 1278:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 1109:

Where it's a matter of word order only, e.g. "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. "Welsh Corgi Cardigan", WP:COMMONNAME.

1034: 2017: 1971: 1925: 1879: 1833: 1714: 1614: 1607: 1576: 1569: 1554: 1508: 1223: 1047: 923: 886: 824: 563:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1092: 172: 1856: 1787: 1748: 1449: 1350: 1181: 993: 949:- all of which is why I favor letting the RS of experts determine the standard capitalization and not a 857: 778: 737: 637: 385: 231: 154: 47: 17: 1135:

and usually also WP:CONCISE, though it's possible some unique names could be longer than derived ones).

975: 684: 679:

Brion Vibber is WMF's lead developer. As for the solution in question, we'd have to get consensus at

598: 506: 473: 222:

loads about her, but I'd be surprised if she's not individually credited on various papers and such.

1420: 1132: 1120: 1113: 1103: 980: 373: 131:

I'm in an intro to archaeological theory class, and a friend pointed out that there's no article on

959: 903: 761: 665: 619: 135:. I don't have the sources to write anything more than a one-line stub... would you have anything? 1341:

No further antagonistic communication is invited from either Justlettersandnumbers or Montanabw.

1096: 1085: 841: 2008: 1962: 1916: 1870: 1824: 1705: 1545: 1499: 1219: 1072: 1043: 919: 882: 820: 691: 213:

Yeah, that's enough probably to establish notability. I find plenty of other stuff with Google

755:

All of which would be over-complex. 1000 articles would be easier to fix than the alternative.

2190: 2152: 2114: 1810: 1776:. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 1735: 1672: 1634: 1596: 1291: 552: 523: 462: 351: 277: 266: 204: 1437: 1425: 844:

there; edited it to do so). Regardless, compass points shouldn't be capitalized unless in a

2043: 2036: 1743: 1443: 1433: 1344: 1271: 1243: 1175: 987: 914:

Sure, but that's not the problem here. I've extensively edited articles in US English (like

851: 772: 731: 631: 379: 313: 302: 225: 148: 1432:; I've made every effort to find common ground with you, but you personally attacked me at 1031: 2058: 594: 590: 543: 500:

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

680: 2194: 2156: 2118: 2080: 2061: 2025: 1979: 1933: 1887: 1841: 1795: 1756: 1722: 1676: 1638: 1600: 1562: 1516: 1461: 1408: 1362: 1295: 1227: 1193: 1051: 1005: 961: 927: 905: 890: 869: 828: 790: 763: 749: 667: 649: 621: 602: 527: 466: 397: 355: 317: 281: 253: 243: 208: 182: 166: 139: 2170: 2163: 1429: 979:

fight, fight about ever single letter and character. I'm done. The writing is on the

968: 954: 898: 756: 716:

to call the meta-template correctly for the supplied breed name in the list inside the

674: 660: 614: 259: 2076: 1994: 1948: 1902: 1531: 942: 514:. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from 453:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

250: 179: 136: 132: 111: 2186: 2148: 2110: 1691: 1668: 1630: 1592: 1485: 1287: 946: 519: 458: 454: 436: 363: 347: 273: 262: 200: 945:- called simply a "Hackney" in horse land (and not a "hackney", either... ) AND a 577:

in the European Union|protected designation]] "Casin" after the Asturian town of ]

305:) 14:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Just realized I didn't give you the blog link, sorry 1039: 1416: 1387:"my leaping reliable sources style wiki-fu beats their crouching WP:IDLI style. 1124: 845: 836: 309: 298: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1728:

Note to self: This template was completely obviated later by adding equivalent

1036: 589:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

583:. The breed is also known as the '''Casina'''<ref name="ASEAMO raza" /: --> 416: 338:

Responded at RfC (and ended up moving it - it wasn't quite in the right venue).

1166: 950: 834:

I'm not sure that's the example you meant (the diff shows a "Defendent" -: -->

1091:

Where they use essentially the same name but a different spelling, use the

2072: 1081: 1033:, the UK and New Zealand Kennel Clubs both have "Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)" 1040:

only where published breed standards consistently capitalize the name

915: 556: 171:

Not that I can find. Information on her seems to be extremely sparse.

699:, that capitalized, or didn't, parameters based on input, such that 432: 1657:

Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona

1646:

Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona

953:

approach where one size is forced to fit all, but few fit...!

703:

would have all three words capitalized in default output, and

25: 1151:

Look at capitalization in running prose, not headings/titles.

2169:

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to

2131:

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to

2093:

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to

2053:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2035: 1651:

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to

1613:

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to

1575:

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to

1270:

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to

344:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Animal_breeds

199:. Buckets of notability. And three sentences at least. — 2071:

Thanks very much for the heads-up. I have weighed in. -

2003: