Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:23, 11 January 2013

Νοητικά means "things of the intellect", just as φυσικά means "things of nature (physics)". Using the approximate categories applicable to your species, I am male, and Australian. Stationed on the planet's surface awaiting orders for my next mission, I specialise in the details of Misplaced Pages style – at WP:MOS (punctuation and style recommendations for our 6,935,641 articles). I am also concerned with titling policy – rational arrangements for naming those articles (see WP:RM, WP:TITLE, WP:DAB).

If you post here, I will answer here. Tea?

Messages:

Category:Slow movement

At the present time, Category:Slow movement includes the following 13 articles.

• Slow Movement (version of 16:49, 17 September 2012)
• Slow cinema (version of 11:50, 10 June 2012)
• Slow design (version of 16:52, 2 July 2012)
• Slow Food (version of 15:42, 6 September 2012)
• Slow Food Nation (version of 02:50, 3 October 2012)
• Slow gardening (version of 23:42, 22 August 2012)
• Slow living (version of 06:20, 17 August 2012)
• Slow marketing (version of 10:36, 14 February 2011)
• Slow Money (version of 20:07, 8 October 2012)
• Slow parenting (version of 23:13, 7 October 2012)
• Slow programming (version of 13:24, 6 April 2012)
• Slow reading (version of 01:07, 15 January 2012)
• Slow Science (version of 07:46, 15 April 2012)

There is variation in regard to capitalization of the titles of the articles, and capitalization of the names of some headings in the articles. Also, the category page itself, Category:Slow movement (version of 15:55, 5 July 2012), has the following statement, in which the linked term is redirected to "Slow movement".

• The Slow Movement is a cultural shift towards slowing down the pace of life in modern-day society.

What, if anything, should be done about the letter case of the word following "Slow" in each of those instances, in the interests of consistency, accepted practice, and Misplaced Pages guidelines? (I am not in a hurry for an answer.)
—Wavelength (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

After a survey of the listings, and one or two of the articles, I am at least as concerned about the case of words that follow "slow". The article Slow Movement itself? I think it should be "Slow" movement; and then, should the term in running text be the same but with no caps at all? I would be prepared to accept "Slow" capitalised, with the precedent of Occupy movement ("Occupy" is capped within the article). Earlier I had wanted to retain quotation marks for that article, but I have changed my mind now that "Occupy movement" has very wide currency. Not so, I think, for the ill-defined "Slow" movement.

The capitalisation is not sufficient to make a good distinction from "slow movement" in the area of musical form, and I would certainly argue for the musical topic as primary, and of perennial interest. But I find to my surprise that there is no such musical article!

It is too time-consuming to campaign in such areas. But I will consider any request to assist.

Noetica 04:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. After reading it, I was almost ready to move "Slow Movement" to ""Slow" movement", but I looked at the section headings in that article, with their variation in letter case, and I do not know what to do about the other expressions (in that article and the others) that use the word "Slow" or "slow". I considered your time limitations and your possible desire to clear your talk page of discussions for the new year, and I decided to leave those articles unchanged for now.

"Adagio (music)" and "Andante (music)" are redirected to "Tempo#Italian tempo markings".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian English: "nee" and "née"

You may wish to comment at User talk:Chris the speller#en-au use of nee vs née (version of 09:31, 20 December 2012) or at Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#en-au use of nee vs née (version of 12:13, 20 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC) and 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added my sharp comments here, and here. Noetica 03:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Your first link (to the second page I mentioned), as used here and at User talk:Chris the speller, is a link to the page history of Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. There is a follow-up question by User:Paul foord at Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. No harm though. And now that history link shows another post of mine, in response to Paul.

Noetica 00:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

I am notifying all participants in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New copy-editors; WP:COPYEDIT

New copy-editors and a revision of Misplaced Pages:Basic copyediting (WP:COPYEDIT) are mentioned at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#Heads up: some newbies coming your way, hopefully (version of 19:03, 27 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC) and 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have now copyedited Misplaced Pages:GettingStarted (see my diff). Such poor writing!

Noetica 03:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Extra punctuation marks

This may interest you. Perhaps the extra symbols are more practical than those in the book On Beyond Zebra! by Dr. Seuss.

• Metapunctuation: When a Comma Isn't Enough: Lewis B. Frumkes: 9780595002429: Amazon.com: Books
  

—Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I mainly buy serious works on real punctuation, but I have just ordered this one for my collection because I found it for just $A14 including delivery, on eBay. It can't do any harm; and there might be some incidental theoretical remarks that are worthwhile.

Noetica 03:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sentence first (blog)

From my watchlist, I followed this revision linking to this discussion (version of 23:57, 31 December 2012) to this revision linking to this user page (version of 02:00, 29 December 2012), where the second external link in the first sentence is to this page, for which the main page is Sentence first ("An Irishman's blog about the English language").
—Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. I went straight to the blog entry itself, and I found myself broadly agreeing with the line taken there. A bit wordy! I often have to fix however and its allies when I edit: sometimes moving it, sometimes altering the punctuation, sometimes substituting an alternative.

I see from the other links you provide that her perceptions of ill-considered admin actions have led SandyGeorgia to retire from Misplaced Pages. I fully understand her frustration at a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Incompetent, trigger-happy, and often juvenile admins. I hope she changes her mind; but I would understand if she did not. I will post at her talkpage soon.

Noetica 03:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Guerillero | My Talk 06:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Focus on content

At WP:Title (talk pages and their associated article pages are synonymous), you wrote:

Apteva, the word "point" is not by itself of interest. The mere fact that Dicklyon happened to use it does not show WP:POINTiness. The inclusion was not with you in mind personally; but it has the great benefit of illustrating how things work consensually on Misplaced Pages, as opposed to a view you hold that has been set aside as non-consensual.

It so happens that yes, you sought to have the article Comet Hale–Bopp moved; and consensus was against that move. It so happened that yes, you have tried at many forums, many times, to bend policy and guidelines your way; but consensus is revealed as contrary to that way.

Per WP:FOC, it is inappropriate to focus on an editor, or even to answer an editor, by saying "XYZ, the word". It is not appropriate to say "that ABC happened to use"

What is appropriate is to say "The word "point".

Directing conversation to one particular editor is never appropriate on a policy, guideline, project or article talk page. It is appropriate only on that editors talk page. It is appropriate at an ANI about that editor, but only about that editor. I know that we have a popular concept of boomerang, but doing so is a violation of FOC - instead a separate AN/I needs to be opened.

What is appropriate is to say "that was used".

What is appropriate is to say "I did not see this as WP:POINTiness.

It is not appropriate to say "The inclusion was not with you in mind personally"

What is appropriate is to say "The inclusion may not have been with any one editor in mind" (unless you are a sock of the other editor involved it is impossible for you to know what they were thinking when it was added as an example).

The following, though, is appropriate:

Good guidelines and good policy do not shy away from ruling on cases that have been controversial but are now settled. Such settled precedents and decisions are exactly what editors look for in policy and guidelines.

Move on?

Noetica 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:FOC and focus on content not on the user. This has nothing to do with user A, B, C, or D, and it is improper to have a conversation, like "Yes A, I agree, or no B I think". Say I think, not you said. While it is common to say oppose/support per A, B, that vote is an echo vote and does not count for much, but theoretically saying per A, B too is a violation of WP:FOC, but "per reasons given" is not.

But no, hyphens and dashes are not "settled". Someone, whose username starts with an N and ends with a vowel, ignored the well founded opposition and lack of consensus to apply dash rules to proper nouns, and did it anyway. By the way, we do have stewards on wikipedia, but they do not steward, so using steward is not appropriate unless someone is actually talking about the stewards. And for another thing, your habit of edit warring immediately is completely inappropriate. We have a WP:BRD cycle that we use. After B comes R, which happened after an editor boldly (that is the B) placed comet Hale-Bopp as an example and it was reverted (that is the R). Then both you and another editor violated BRD by following R with a second R. After the R comes D - for discussion - always, always, always. Plus this is a policy page, and as it says at the top of the talk page "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic." Editing policy pages is very different from editing guidelines, because they reflect a wider consensus, and carry a stricter mandate (although by the way none of the examples used in a policy carry any mandate whatsoever, which is the false assumption that was used in adding comet Hale-Bopp, to try to pretend that it being in a policy could be used as an argument that it was spelled correctly with a hyphen or a dash). On the other hand, the principles followed in editing policy pages are well advised for editing guidelines and essays as well. Apteva (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Per this post:

(one particular editor):

1. There is no lack of accord between the two long-established pages WP:MOS and WP:TITLE. Each has its role on Misplaced Pages. A small minority does not like this. You speak pejoratively of "some arcane MOS guidance"; but it is all derived consensually – arguably far more consensually than certain tight and untested algorithms that have been promoted and included in WP:TITLE.

Is this a private conversation with another editor? If so it belongs on their talk page. Is this something written by a particular editor? If so naming them is not appropriate. And seriously, asking editors to post at the end? Not reasonable. This is a talk page, not an essay. Putting replies next to what they are replying to is more readable. Apteva (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Apteva issue

Hello, Noetica. I would suggest you take a look at this conversation I held recently with Apteva. Through it, I've come to the conclusion that he may indeed be willing to consider distancing himself from the dash area for a time; I think this is a perfectly fair way to end the dispute. Notwithstanding the issues in which Apteva has been involved, I really do think he's a reasonable and well-intentioned editor who is just in the minority of a MoS-related dispute. Harmonizing relations between the minority and the majority, which has attained the consensus, appears to be the logical next step in this process. Best, dci | TALK 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re hat note - thanks for that, I'll make sure to in future if I do again. (A rarity.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

Hi, Noetica! I've seen your name a lot at RM discussions lately. :) I saw your comment regarding Dazed and Confused and responded to it. Would like to hear from you! Direct link here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Relisting

Two things per this diff. First, only the closer relists a discussion, not participants in the discussion ("the closer may choose to re-list the request"). Second, no reason for the relisting is ever given. There are more instructions about this in the closing instructions. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, instead of playing every wikilawyering avenue one could come up with—regardless of hair's breadth validity or invalidity—wouldn't it be better for you and everyone else to take a more collaborative stance? Your contributions on certain topics are much valued, and I think the community would be most grateful if you expanded on these rather than pushing up against a brick wall (I don't imagine it's very satisfying for you, the current imbroglio; more like a drag). The community has decided that it's disruptive, and may I say that continuing down this avenue is the very opposite of the roles that would give you the intellectual and social recognition we all wish for. Tony (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligence

Greetings Noetica. If nothing better comes of the current RfC, I will have done well for having collaborated with you. I came to this discussion only recently, for different reasons all together. I only noticed the discussion by that chance. I don't know how hard fought the battles were, nor the players. I can accept the consensus either way, though if I had entered the en dash debate when it began, I believe I would have opposed its use; except perhaps for newer subjects, with some form of grandfathering for hyphenated articles that were already published in Misplaced Pages that way. My reason would be based on the assumption that -- could have been used if the writers felt the more prominent dash was the best fit for that article. Naturally where technology has advanced, any occurrence of -- could be updated to – an en dash without objection, I would imagine. But to take well accepted common names and basically respell them; I think is arrogant, and not a best exercise of editorial judgement, IMO. What am I failing to consider regarding the dash to answer that question? --My76Strat (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

FOC reminder

First, I remind you of WP:FOC

Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Misplaced Pages is built upon the principle of collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to our community. Bringing up conduct often leads to painful digressions and misunderstandings.

It can be difficult to focus on content if other editors appear to be uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind, which will only serve to derail the discussion. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below.

I remind you of this because of this comment of yours on the disambiguation talk page:

So when one's own take on a guideline is questioned in a hotly contested RM that is not going as one likes, with hard argument one is at a loss to answer, one denigrates the opposition as "confused", and rushes off to change the guideline in midstream?

Second, at the time you made this comment, I had addressed hours earlier every element of your "hard argument" at the discussion to which you were referring. Catch up.

Oh, I see you have now, finally, responded. And you're still claiming I missed your point. Sigh. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)