Misplaced Pages

Incorrect: five miles (eight km)

Correct: five miles (8 km)

Read more ...

Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

• Overview
• Contents
• Tips

• Accessibility
• Biography
• Disambiguation pages
  • Organizing by subject area
• Gender identity
• Hidden text
• Infoboxes
• Linking
• Self-references
• Words to watch

• Abbreviations
• Capitalization
• Dates and numbers
• Pronunciation
• Spelling
• Text formatting
• Titles of works

• Captions
• Image placement
• Icons
• Images

• Layout
• Lead section
• Tables
• Trivia sections

• Lists
• Lists of works
• Road junctions
• Stand-alone lists

• Article size
• Article titles
• Categories, lists, and navigation templates
• Categorization
• Hatnotes
• Subpages
• Understandability

• Category

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—_{Talk to my owner:Online}

• News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"

• Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything

• Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject

• In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case

• From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality

• Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies

• Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

• Traffic report: Was a long and dark December

• Single page

• Front page
• About
• Subscribe
• Suggestions
• Archives

Self-help writing tutorials:

• Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text
• Advanced editing exercises
• Spot the ambiguity
• Build your linking skills
• Using hyphens and dashes
• Copy-editing essentials, part of the Military History Academy

edit

Move Request

See Talk:Women in development approach

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Nomination of Central Provident Fund (South Africa) for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Central Provident Fund (South Africa) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Chevrolet TrailBlazer edit

When correcting for style issues, please take care for things that affect page layout. Changing the date style on an image filename, like you did at Chevrolet TrailBlazer, removes the photo from the article. The preview function is your friend! IFCAR (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks for spotting this. New changes to the script last night, and of course I mainly examine the diff, not the preview. It's not meant to do that, so changes are in order. I'll check that its been fixed. Tony (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Something silly on my part. Tony (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

chess notation

Tony, there are hundreds if not thousands of chess articles, have never seen "×" (vs x) or "0—0—0" (vs 0-0-0) in any. Are you sure you want to introduce inconsistency in *one* of them (Morphy vs the Duke)? No offense, thx for consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony, I think I miscommunicated. I think you are replicating on WP notation conventions you find in published sources related to specific articles? But I doubt ProjChess is interested in that; they don't have a hardline convention standard, but I believe they would not be in favor of introducing variations on "x" and "0-0-0" (dashes) in articles. And I'm confused how that is important at all. (E.g., sources that use P-K4 descriptive notation are always translated to e4 algebraic when quoting sources. Etc.) And I disagree the difference is subtle, IMO "×" makes notation hard to read, and "0—0—0" is just weird-looking. (It's just MO.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No doubt "0—0—0" is appallingly hard to read. They're em dashes, used by only one source, a weird decision IMO. What almost every major source uses is "0–0–0", i.e. en dashes, which is what WP widely uses in such contexts. Just one, a minor one, is in musical expressions such as "C–E–G", rather than the crowded and harder-to-read "C-E-G". All I'm doing is pointing out (on your talk page) what the major sources use. Personally, there seem to be very good reasons for their decisions. I've never read much chess notation, but the character ex flummoxes my eyes, since it's of entirely different function to the adjacent letters, which symbolise Things rather than Actions/Events. The sources seem to have acknowledged this.

I'd be inclined to raise the issue of your own familiarity with the ex and the hyphen in this context (a common psychological phenomenon I see in myself, sometimes); but this would only have arisen if your exposure had been entirely or almost entirely to WP rather than to the sources on which it's meant to be based. Tony (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm not totally understanding you, but a few things: 1) I screwed up using the emdash example, when you only used the endash ("0–0–0"). But even endash, looks weird IMO, and isn't used much at all in WP chess articles. 2) "x" isn't confusing at all for chess players, because "x" represents no piece, so there's no ambiguity ever. "×" might be found in some books you're looking at, but (and I think ProjChess would agree, but they are slow to form many conventions) it isn't used in 99.99 percent WP chess articles, and wouldn't want to be. (The thing is, uniformity across WP chess articles, though we don't have that now for sure, is the direction. I don't think anyone cares what style of notation symbol is used in a reliable sources, the moves are what counts, and uniformity, and "x" and "0-0-0" are what are used in nearly all articles. ) 3) There are many notation conventions used, for e.g. German (":" for captures), abbreviated algebraic ("de" for "dxe5"), Yugoslav publications (which drop "+" for check and "x" for capture, e.g., "Ne5" for "Nxe5"). The style I've noticed followed in nearly all WP articles is almost identical to that used in "US Chess Life" mag, with "x" for captures, "+" for checks, "0-0-0" for castles. (The only diffs between "Chess Life" & WP is that "Chess Life" uses space after the dot: "1. e4", whereas in general on WP, unbolded and many times bolded notation goes without the space: "1.e4". And "Chess Life" uses "2. ... Nc6" when representing a straggler Black move, whereas most usually WP uses "2...Nc6" .)

So, those are all the subtleties. ("×" and "0–0–0" variations haven't been incorporated. Again it doesn't matter what's in RS - just the moves. ) Again there aren't strong conventions agreed at ProjChess, but I can assure that "×" and "0–0–0" are not intentionally used. (One thing I paused on was "1. P-K4" vs "1. P–K4", I thought for sure the endash was right since "to" was conveyed. But later I reversed the conclusion: "1. P-K4" seems more normal when descriptive is used ... is more compact for printing/reading, though again, I'm sure there are published RSs that use "1. P–K4". But descriptive is also nearly never used on WP, so, this isn't any issue either really.)

I'm not gonna step on what you're doing, because ProjChess is lagging on forming conventions and does not have strong conventions. (But, "×" and "0–0–0" are not good for chessplayers IMO, and not in WP articles, regardless if some published books or whatever chose those stylings. That's not important I'm sure.) Cheers! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The question is, then, whether en.WP has been based solely on one source, US Chess Life, against all of the other authorities I listed on your talk page. Tony (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you're misinterpreting me. I never said the notation convention here is based on US Chess Life. I just happened to noticed it is mostly the same as what is used in that rag, except for space after the dot ("1. e4" vs "1.e4") and punctuation for straggler Black moves ("2. ... Nc6" vs "2...Nc6"). I don't know that WP notation norms are based on anything. And there isn't a strong convention here either, with some differences. But one thing is certain, that notation style does not try to mimick, for a particular content, the styling used in the corresponding RS. (The moves are the thing, not a publisher's styling preference. I've never seen anyone care about that. Uniformity across articles is a good thing, but again, ProjChess conventions are not strong to make a uniformity. But that's what's valued, not what a publisher happened to print. For example, RSs might use different forms of algebraic, like what I listed, or even descriptive notation. But if the content ends up in a WP chess artcile, it's transcribed to one of the convention norms used here. But there is no consensus on total uniformity regarding that, so there are some differences out there. But those differences are diffs between editors' preferences, not what's in RSs.) Ok, take care. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony1, If you take a close look at MOS:HYPHEN, MOS:DASH, MOS:EMDASH, and MOS:ENDASH, I think you will agree that the correct character to use here is the hyphen. Hyphens indicate conjunction, whereas dashes mark divisions within a sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we aren't talking English prose. MoS guidelines are inapplicable re chess notation. If they were, then e.g. a space would follow the dot, but it doesn't: "1.e4". Notation is a thing unto itself. WP policy on punct is irrelevant. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither MoS nor prose: it's the sources, guys. Tony (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me understand you ... Do you mean, if you find a published source, and it has game XYZ, and a WP article quotes game XYZ, and the source you have for the game uses "×" instead of the WP normal "x" (or "0–0–0" instead of the WP normal "0-0-0"), that you want to, or think it only correct, to replicate what the source uses ("×"), instead of the WP normal "x", in the WP article which quotes the game? (Is that what you're saying? Because if so, that makes no sense to me whatever. WP wants uniformity for "captures" in articles. What if another source quotes game XYZ and they use ":", or no symbol at all? And another editor reverts your "×" in favor of the symbol found in the second source? And a third? And so on? Or what if game XYZ was found in an older source that was not reprinted in algebraic, and uses descriptive notation? Do you intend, because of your source, to add or change the XYZ game in the WP article to descriptive?! When descriptive is not used for presenting chess moves in any WP article?! Uniformity is the thing, and right now "x" is the norm 99.99% in WP chess articles.) I must be missing something!? Let me know what. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No offence...

...but your daughter looks a little woof. Egg Centric 15:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a shock to both parents. Tony (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

bug

I am assuming this bug is fixed? I repaired the damage to the infobox here. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, gratuitous insertion of an in-script function name. Can't understand how it could have happened. I've run my script on the original version but could not replicate the error – it works normally now. --Ohconfucius 03:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cooling the edit war

Thanks for your plea to cool things down. Unfortunately, from past experience you can read about here, this is likely to be the start of a long trip downhill. Falun Gong editors typically have this world view that if you are not 100% pro-Falun Gong, you are against them. Their proselytism, advocacy, and sensitivity to criticism are legend. I'll just get back to gnoming. --Ohconfucius 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, withdrawing is a good option: that editor will probably get into trouble there or elsewhere, sooner or later. Tony (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)