| Revision as of 03:28, 23 October 2009 editKoavf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,174,994 edits →Moving 867-5309/Jenny to 867‒5309/Jenny← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:31, 23 October 2009 edit undoRadiopathy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,608 edits →Moving 867-5309/Jenny to 867‒5309/JennyNext edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| :Uh, no you weren't, you were insisting that it was an m dash, when in fact it was not.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | :Uh, no you weren't, you were insisting that it was an m dash, when in fact it was not.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Wow''' I wasn't talking about your talk page above, I was discussing . Also, I never claimed that it was an mdash, but a figure dash; which is what it is. Show me where I "insisted that it was an m dash." —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 03:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | ::'''Wow''' I wasn't talking about your talk page above, I was discussing . Also, I never claimed that it was an mdash, but a figure dash; which is what it is. Show me where I "insisted that it was an m dash." —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 03:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::He meant me. Don't feed the troll. <b>]</b> ] 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Add RB chart to Alicia Keys Discography== | ==Add RB chart to Alicia Keys Discography== | ||
Revision as of 03:31, 23 October 2009
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.
Per the stream of edits such as your edit to Everything is Beautiful , there is an interaction between the specificity of articles about a particular song by a particular band, and the specificity of categories, that it appears you were unfamiliar with. Just to clarify, any article specifically about a specific Smashing Pumpkins release, such as Doomsday Clock (song), can be tagged with Category: Smashing Pumpkins songs, but not articles about songs by another band that SP has covered, such as Everything is Beautiful or Monster Mash. Anarchangel (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started that discussion I mentioned...
...at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music#"By-artist" categorization of cover songs. Your input there is welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Italicizing article titles
I find this edit fallacious: WP:NC#Special characters and formatting specifically says, in bold, Do not apply formatting. It does not "mandate using italicized names for albums". In fact it says it "is used only in special cases" such as for taxonomic names of genera and species. MOS:TTR#Italics and formatting further says that {{italic title}} "should be used only in special cases – currently its only common use is for taxonomic genera and species". If you wish to change the MoS, you need to start a discussion on this in the appropriate place (the albums project would be a good place to start). Unless/until there is a consensus on the issue, please stop using {{italic title}} on album articles, and don't insert disengenous wording into the project's guidelines. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If it was MOS:TITLE that you were referring to (when you said "MOS mandates using italicized names for albums"), that guidelines is for the titles of works, not the titles of Misplaced Pages articles. In other words, it refers to where the name of the work appears in the article text. If you look at all of the examples, they are for text formatting within the article body, not formatting of the article's title. So yes, we do "mandate" italicizing titles within article text, but we don't mandate itlicizing the titles of Misplaced Pages articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Age Ain't Nothing But a Number capitalization
Hey there Koavf, I noticed you recently requested both Age Ain't Nothing But a Number and Age Ain't Nothing But a Number (song) to be moved due to the capitalization of "but". I think it might interest you to have a look at this discussion I had brought up to another user when he moved the title to capitalize "but". Since both seem to be correct, I'd thought it might be worthwhile to maybe discuss capitalization of "but", just so it doesn't get moved back and forth every once in a while. Regards. — ξ 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good gravy As a non-grammatician, I have to admit that I cannot say whether or not "but" is a coordinating conjunction in this title, nonetheless it is shorter than four letters (and it is not at the beginning or end of the phrase), so it should not be capitalized. Please explain on my talk if there is something I am missing here (which is entirely possible.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, per WP:CAPS, it states In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for… and it lists several examples, such as articles, prepositions, coordinating conjunctions and so on. According to Dictionary.com, "but" can be used as either conjunction, preposition or adverb. This is where it gets tricky: all definitions seem to fit. Conjunctions and prepositions are, of course, not capitalized; adverbs are. The definition of "but" in sense of an adverb is "only; just", which seems to fit the title of the album and song (age is just/only a number). This is pretty much where the problem arises. Do we capitalize "but" or not? Doing a bit of searching, some publishers and websites capitalize "but": Allmusic, Entertainment Weekly, etc. Others don't: Rolling Stone, among others (too lazy to look at the moment). It's somewhat inconsistent, so I'm not too sure if either are fine or if one is more correct than another. As for the amount of letters it contains, I'd point out that "it" is shorter than four letters, but is always capitalized as it can only be used as a pronoun or noun. — ξ 03:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Touché You are--obviously--correct that "it" is capitalized, as it is a noun. My recollection was that only nouns and verbs were exempt from the minimal-length rule, but I suppose I was mistaken on this matter as well. It is clearly more complicated than I first realized and I don't know that I have anything to add to the discussion. :-/ Thanks for educating me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Perhaps I'll bring this up over at WT:CAPS. — ξ 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Album
How is In the Beginning (Circa 1960) considered a posthumous album? Bubba73 (talk), 05:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Paul announced that he was leaving the month before it was released but the lawsuit to dissolve the Beatles wasn't filed until December. Also, "posthumous" usually meand after death. Bubba73 (talk), 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Defaultsort and refs
Well spotted on the ref thing. I'm taking out items with "www." (among other stuff) from the category Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot), I wrongly picked this article because it has www in the image name (short for "West Wsa Won" i suppose) adn I put "." in the regex instead of "\." I'll check back for any others like that.
The default sort is to enable "How The" to sort after "How That" and before "How Theodore". (Note the capital T.) This does not affect the title shown in categories, just the sort order.
DMB
Hello there. Just noticed you added Category:Canadian discographies to Dave Matthews Band discography and I was wondering why? As far as I know, none of the band members are Canadian. Darry2385 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I didn't want to go removing it without asking in case there was something I didn't know. Darry2385 (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thumbs up
Good job on the discography categorisations. Cheers, Skomorokh, barbarian 07:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, man I'm still chipping away; I should be done later today/early tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The site "the classicalshop.net" has been blacklisted because it has been observed that it is often linked by spammers. See this discussion MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#theclassicalmusicshop.net. Perhaps one of you has opinions about providing links to product pages in discographies, or knows of a page where one could solicit opinions. Robert.Allen (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Roman Polanski
OK, I don't know whether you're trying to be helpful or a vandal, but adding the "Polish Rapists" category to the poor guy's article is inflammatory. Besides, she came onto him. Which makes him a paedophile, not a rapist. --LordNecronus (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
So, he's in the "French Rapists" category? Right, time to do some editing. --LordNecronus (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC) There is no settle consensus for adding these cats, talkpage please. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Polanski see talk
What is there to see on the talk? This is also under discussion at BLP noticeboard.Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
1
Copy this to at least three other talk pages.--Iusepencils. (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Langauge categories
Per Category:Articles containing German language text and Category:Articles containing Japanese language text, these categories should be added only by use of {{lang}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) 02:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks I was not aware of that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thich
WP:HONOR Honorifics (e.g. "Thich") are generally to be avoided in article titles, although there has been consensus to include them amongst some (e.g. Pope John Paul II and Saint Peter.) Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (clergy) makes no mention of a special dispensation for "Thich" and I know of no consensus to include this honorific in article names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is not an honorofic. Thich comes from the word "Thich Ca" meaning "Sakya" which was the birth tribe of Buddha, and is used by all clerics, effectively their surname, because they consider themselves to be part of the Buddha's family. Things like "Hoa thuong" (most ven), "Thuong toa" (ven) "Dai Duc" (rev) are honorifics, this is not. Are you going to delete "Singh" from the neam of every Sikh? Because a Sikha leader ages ago gave all his followers that surname. Stop dogmatically doing things without proper reasoning. You also moved a Buddhist temple's name and chopped it's name off under "honorific". YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Easier to just use my talk page YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sort keys
Yes, I understand what you were doing. But the band isn't called "Sisters of Mercy" it is called "The Sisters of Mercy" and this is something the band makes a particular note of a few times on their official website. So defaultsorting them to appear under the the letter "S" is incorrect. --JD554 (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- A proper noun is not unimportant, it is something's name (ie the band's). Just because The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are sorted to exclude the "The" is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I have shown how the band's name is correctly rendered. --JD554 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Democrats for Life of America
I strongly urge you to read up on how we use cats on Misplaced Pages, and stop inappropriately adding Category:Democrats for Life of America to articles. -Andrew c 04:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want this to come off to harsh, but maybe you shouldn't be creating categories if you don't understand the basic purpose of categories in the first place. Seeing as you did not revert all of my category removals, perhaps you agree to some agree in your haste (for example adding this minor category to a parent article, or adding it to completely off topic subjects). I'd argue that adding this category to individuals' articles is a case of Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization, where clearly their affiliation/membership to this organization is not defining (and I'd further argue that this category is a subject category, not a list category, and that we'd at least need a separate category called Category:Democrats for Life members, though I don't believe such an article is necessary due to the aforementioned overcategorization). Think of much more notable organizations, the AARP, the League of Women Voters, the Blue Dog Democrats, the Progressive Caucus, etc. Do these have categories? (I will note that we do have a NRA membership category though). But please, look through the articles of individuals whose article you added this category. Do they have any other category based on organization? Imagine what the categorization at the bottom of these politician's articles would look like if we did that? Democrats for Life is a very minor/trivial organization, so if we are to include that category, we'd have to include hundreds of others. We simply don't categorize individuals like this, so this is a classic case of overcategorization when it comes to articles on individuals. Similarly, I believe this category is overcategorization for the 2004 Democratic National Convention article for similar reasons. What does that leave? 5 articles? A bill they created, a march they participated in 2006, a prior unrelated organization, a book written by the org, and the parent article. This category is currently being misapplied to articles, and I don't believe it can stand on it's own, and thus I am nominating it for deletion. I hope this explains what I was too short about last night (sorry for that, it was late and I perhaps should have gone to bed, which I did end up doing in the middle of my reverts). -Andrew c 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_13#Category:Democrats_for_Life_of_America. -Andrew c 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Moving 867-5309/Jenny to 867‒5309/Jenny
There was already a discussion over at WP:MOS about this. Do not revert.— Dædαlus 06:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right And see my most recent edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- All I see is that you moved an article to a name you didn't have consensus for. You don't get your way during discussion. During discussion, the article stays how it was, you need to gain consensus before a move like that.— Dædαlus 06:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I know. That is why I went to post on the user's talk page to apologize; I didn't realize there was a discussion at all and if consensus is to do otherwise, I will happily honor it. It was a simple mistake. For that matter, I do not know if the other user did essentially the same thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, I see that now. Other than that, I am currently seeking admin help in moving the article back.— Dædαlus 06:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I know. That is why I went to post on the user's talk page to apologize; I didn't realize there was a discussion at all and if consensus is to do otherwise, I will happily honor it. It was a simple mistake. For that matter, I do not know if the other user did essentially the same thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- All I see is that you moved an article to a name you didn't have consensus for. You don't get your way during discussion. During discussion, the article stays how it was, you need to gain consensus before a move like that.— Dædαlus 06:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You didn't come to my talk page to apologise, but don't worry about it. I was right and I was proven right. Radiopathy •talk• 03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, no you weren't, you were insisting that it was an m dash, when in fact it was not.— Dædαlus 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow I wasn't talking about your talk page above, I was discussing SarekOfVulcan. Also, I never claimed that it was an mdash, but a figure dash; which is what it is. Show me where I "insisted that it was an m dash." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- He meant me. Don't feed the troll. Radiopathy •talk• 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow I wasn't talking about your talk page above, I was discussing SarekOfVulcan. Also, I never claimed that it was an mdash, but a figure dash; which is what it is. Show me where I "insisted that it was an m dash." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Add RB chart to Alicia Keys Discography
Hello koavf: Please add a RB colum to the Alicia Keys Discography page. AK has had many #1 on the RBcharts. AK is more of a RB artist. Beyonce has the RB column on her discography page so I think RB colums are allowed. AK's positions on the RB charts easily verifiable from BB. I dont know how to do charts that is why I havent done it. I dont wanna ruin the page. Thanks 64.26.99.120 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
when you added cats to Bahá'u'lláh
What do you think of Category:People of Ottoman Istanbul vs Category:People from Istanbul - and does it matter if he was there only a few years vs being born there? I don't know how these cats are defined. Smkolins (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Economic history of Modern China
Why did you move this article without consent? Now it is very difficult to move this article back. It also messed up the intro. Please find some way of moving it back.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Manual processing
Hi; if you manually rename categories that are at WP:CFDS, don't forget to also manually transfer the contents of the talk pages. That's why I like letting the bot do it—much easier ;| Good Ol’factory 03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)