User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 36
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
November 2009
Morning Dew
ResolvedUser talk:Rocket000, SMcCandlish, and User talk:69.242.140.172: Hi folks, just to let you know I removed the sentence "The song is most popularly known today as a cover by the Grateful Dead". from the Morning Dew article. My reasons are explained in the talk page.Civic Cat (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedThis comment by you cracked me up. What you stated in that edit summary is true, but not everyone knows what a portmanteau is or how it works. Some people do not even know that is the name for the type of word blending we are referring to. The way it was formatted in the lead was to quickly present how it works, even though that term is linked right before the quick demonstration. Even so, I am not against your change to that. But I also point out that the "term" dynamic duo is sometimes used as an alternative name for supercouple, as seen in this link. You are not the first person to think that "term" was thrown into the lead without attribution, but it was put there with valid reason. Do you feel that it should remain out of the lead, due to the wording "power couple" being used as an alternate name more so? Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I think you should have reverted but, if you had, a great edit summary comeback would have been "sure they are".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Laughing out loud. True, we actually do have those.
- SMcCandlish, I also am unsure if we should have two different spellings in the lead for the word Supercouple. Besides it also being spelled as super couple, it is additionally at times spelled as super-couple. The spellings in this case do not seem that important to me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be two spellings, since both are reliably sourced. [Not cited directly in the lead, but both spellings appear in the titles of sources cited elsewhere in the article. Good enough for me, but someone might object and want actual citations next to each term; I don't care either way.] This is 100% normal WP procedure, and is done in thousands of articles. Portmanteau: Not an issue, since the word is linked to a pretty good article on what portmanteaux are, so no one will be confused or left wondering. If we tried to write for the ignorant (or worse yet, the stupid) at every moment, all of our articles would be much, much longer and unbearably tedious. We have links for a reason. :-) Dynamic duo: Removed it because neither you nor anyone else has sourced it in the article, so it had to go unless/until someone sourced it in the article. If it is sourced, then it should be in the lead along with the other alt. terms, certainly. One potential problem was that "dynamic duo" is much more frequently used to refer (seriously or sarcastically) to pairs of superheroes or would-be heroes. Dynamic duo is a WP:DAB page, and I've updated it to account for all of this. All good? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I would still oppose inclusion of "dynamic duo". I've read the piece you cited, and there is no evidence that it is being used as a general term, it is simply the article author trying to be less repetitive and more "clever". One journalist's usage doesn't make it an actual term in general public use; the journo was just trying to be descriptive and catchy. I've done some Google searches with lots of "-" exclusions (-wikipedia -wiki, etc.), and can't find any occurrences of "dynamic duo" in proximity to "power couple", "powercouple", "super couple" or "supercouple" that are neither a) derivatives of or copies of the article you cite, or b) derivatives of or copies of the WP article, with 95+% being the latter. I'm taking the super couple link off the Dynamic duo DAB page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that it is 100% normal WP procedure to cite alternative spellings for a term; it is just that I looked at it as more trivial in this case, especailly since there are three different ways that it is spelled. Surely, people know that not everyone is always going to spell it as a close compound word, right? Sort of like the term prime time. Should we put all three different spellings of Supercouple in the lead? I have seen three different spellings of terms in leads here before, but I am only asking.
- As for "dynamic duo," I have seen it used more than once by soap opera columnists/journalists interchangeably for the term supercouple. If you Google Dynamic duo and power couple together, you also get plenty of people using the words interchangeably. This is seen far less when you Google Dynamic duo and supercouple, though. Either way, I do get your points on this matter. I just wanted to let you know that the "term" Dynamic duo is sometimes used interchangeably with supercouple and power couple, and that I was not simply adding original research into the lead. As we also know, Wikipedia's Dynamic duo page is not an article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- If there are more than 1 source for "dynamic duo" in this context, I'd cite 2 of them and added it back in, to both the article and the DAB page. For the rest, I don't think it matters all that much. Maybe have both "power couple" and "super couple" and mention that sometimes either are spelled without spacing, and give "dynamic duo" as a third term? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- As for "dynamic duo," I have seen it used more than once by soap opera columnists/journalists interchangeably for the term supercouple. If you Google Dynamic duo and power couple together, you also get plenty of people using the words interchangeably. This is seen far less when you Google Dynamic duo and supercouple, though. Either way, I do get your points on this matter. I just wanted to let you know that the "term" Dynamic duo is sometimes used interchangeably with supercouple and power couple, and that I was not simply adding original research into the lead. As we also know, Wikipedia's Dynamic duo page is not an article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Chili Township, Illinois
ResolvedI see that you just moved "Chili Township, Hancock County, Illinois" to simply "Chili Township". I understand your reason for this from the summary; but in fact all the townships in Illinois are named according to the standard "X Township, Y County, Z State". Since many townships must be named this way to disambiguate, it's more consistent to name all of the townships in the same manner. Also, since townships in Illinois are units of county government, it makes sense to mention both the county and state in the title. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- This strikes me as yet another case of random WikiProjects making up their own "guidelines" and doing wildly different things than the entire rest of the encyclopedia. I'm not going to fight you on this (I have bigger fish to fry) but I feel that you are making a mistake. While, yes, "Jefferson Township" and various other commonly named ones certainly will need a great deal of disambiguation, there is only one "Chili Township" in the world, and WP:DAB and WP:NC don't go out the window just because the topic happens to be townships instead of turtles or battleships or musicians. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since you are not fighting this, I don't wish to argue either -- but for clarification I would just point out that the fifth bullet under "Deciding an article name" on WP:NC reads "Consistent – Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." It is quite common for a given township name to be used in multiple counties within the same state, thus requiring disambiguation; the "consistency" bullet calls for others to be named similarly. Nothing is going "out the window", and this is not "wildly different" than the "entire rest of the encyclopedia". Most city articles are named "City, State", not just "City", and the same goes for counties. Omnedon (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand these views, but I think that you are mix-'n'-matching logical categories here. WP:NC's preference for consistency is in reference to the "base" name of the article. E.g. Don't use Elizabeth I of England for one article, but Queen Elizabeth II or Elizabeth Mountbatten for another. It has nothing to do with disambiguation. WP:DAB covers that, for the most part (with things like WP:NCP covering special cases). DAB makes it clear that disambiguators are only used when required (on an article-by-article basis), and that keeping article names short and predictable is an important goal. Anyway, as long as readers can input "Chili Township" and find what they're looking for, I don't have a big bone to pick. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since you are not fighting this, I don't wish to argue either -- but for clarification I would just point out that the fifth bullet under "Deciding an article name" on WP:NC reads "Consistent – Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." It is quite common for a given township name to be used in multiple counties within the same state, thus requiring disambiguation; the "consistency" bullet calls for others to be named similarly. Nothing is going "out the window", and this is not "wildly different" than the "entire rest of the encyclopedia". Most city articles are named "City, State", not just "City", and the same goes for counties. Omnedon (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Conversation about Template:Cite web/doc
ResolvedPlease see User talk:Debresser#Edit to Template:Cite web/doc when you get a chance. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"Minor" edits
ResolvedRe [1] -- please don't mark additions or deletions of content as "Minor" edits. They'll be missed by people watching the page who are ignoring minor edits. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Adding an already-existing article (e.g. David de Sola Pool) to the appropriate DAB page (i.e. Pool (disambiguation) in this case) is a minor edit, as there is zero rational basis upon which anyone could object. I would understand your point if I'd removed something legitimate, e.g. deleted Ithiel de Sola Pool from the list because, for example, I'd gotten it into my head that he and David are not Pools, but de Sola Pools and should be at a De Sola Pool DAB page, or whatever. Or if I'd done something otherwise wacky, like decided in my infinite wisdom to merge Poole (disambiguation) into that page. I don't bug watchlisters with routine maintenance twiddles like adding David d.S.P. to a DAB page. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Additions and removals are not minor. See WP:MINOR#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Perspectives on the range and depth of the applicability of that differ widely between editors (some would not remove or add one character without unchecking "This is a minor edit", others would happily perform 20 basic grammar and readability fixes, including deletions and additions, without unchecking it). I've been at this since 2005, with over 46,000 edits, and you are one of only two editors, ever, who have accused me of abusing the "This is a minor edit" checkbox. I think I'll keep my own counsel on this, at least as far as my interpretation of guidelines goes. I've actually been unchecking "minor" for not-necessarily-100%-obvious additions to DAB pages since your note (see very recent edits, at Pool, for example), so I'm not ignoring you either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hell's teeth, this sort of thing happens a lot. Are we trying for a redefinition of a "storm in a teacup"? Per Senor McCandlish, no malicious intent, move along, nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not trying to be stormy about it, only indicating that there is method to my madness, and I do not act randomly or willy-nilly around here. I've had time to develop an editing style and procedure that both works for me and generally agrees with most other editors' expecations. But, ya can't keep everyone happy all the time; so it goes. Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Totally. Next micro-drama, um die ecke, erste strasse links. Purlease. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not trying to be stormy about it, only indicating that there is method to my madness, and I do not act randomly or willy-nilly around here. I've had time to develop an editing style and procedure that both works for me and generally agrees with most other editors' expecations. But, ya can't keep everyone happy all the time; so it goes. Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't accuse you of abusing it. I believe you misunderstood it, and I have noted (and appreciated) the new unmarked non-minor edits -- thanks, and cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hell's teeth, this sort of thing happens a lot. Are we trying for a redefinition of a "storm in a teacup"? Per Senor McCandlish, no malicious intent, move along, nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Perspectives on the range and depth of the applicability of that differ widely between editors (some would not remove or add one character without unchecking "This is a minor edit", others would happily perform 20 basic grammar and readability fixes, including deletions and additions, without unchecking it). I've been at this since 2005, with over 46,000 edits, and you are one of only two editors, ever, who have accused me of abusing the "This is a minor edit" checkbox. I think I'll keep my own counsel on this, at least as far as my interpretation of guidelines goes. I've actually been unchecking "minor" for not-necessarily-100%-obvious additions to DAB pages since your note (see very recent edits, at Pool, for example), so I'm not ignoring you either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Additions and removals are not minor. See WP:MINOR#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Billiards at the World Games
ResolvedI use the real name, as it can be seen in the schedule of the World Games 2009 (http://results.worldgames2009.tw/WG_Info/en/Root.mvc) Armbrust (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- The real names of these events is in the form "World Games YYYY" not "YYYY World Games"; many of these articles have it backwards. I already have all of them open in other windows, fixing it, and fixing other issues. Don't worry, I won't change any of the meaning of the content, or mess with tables, or make other potentially dangerous changes. I'm just fixing stuff that isn't correct, like "YYYY World Games", and stuff that is grammatically incorrect in English, and not consistent with other articles (i.e. the games are called "three-cushion billiards" and "nine-ball" in English, and are called by those names pretty much 100% consistently in English Wikipedia; not "carom three-cushion" or "nine-ball pool", which are not real expressions in English at all). Anyway, I am making all these minor changes concurrently; should be done in 1 hour. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Flag icons again
ResolvedI just now mentioned your name in a new thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) #Clarify context, in respect to an edit you made in 2007, and thought I should give you a heads-up. Eubulides (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedI am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm probably not a good choice. In that entire topic area I am no trained expert, and I only edit Albinism and related articles, mainly from a cultural perspective, not a biological one (I'm an anthropologist by training). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedTo be honest, I have no idea, what was wrong with my edit in this article. I removed a section, that was in my eyes ridiculous. Who could be interested in this kind of information? "He has two daughters that i know, one called danielle and the other natalie, both them are absolutely stunning." In the german Wikipedia such nonsense would be deleted. So did I in the english Article of Chris Small. --Kryston (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- My mistake! It was User:Snooker-loopy98 who added the stupid stuff to the article; you were the one who cleaned it up! Sorry! I looked at the diff wrong or something. D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Stargate glyphs
ResolvedHi- you just removed the stargate glyphs at List of Stargate Universe episodes. There has long been consensus that they are suitable to be included, but this is the subject of a recent RfC. Your opinion would be appreciated here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stargate#Gate_glyphs_in_episode_lists.3F. Staecker (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Put them back by all means; I'm seeking to resolve this more finally, at TfD. In point of fact, the Wikipedia-wide general consensus is that iconic widgets like this are a terrible, terrible, terrible idea in the middle of article prose, and usually a poor idea even outside of prose, as codified at WP:MOSICON. The SG WikiProject coming to some localized "micro-consensus" doesn't change that at all, and guidelines trump project preferences about 99 times out of 100. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)