|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hi. Thought I'd offer further points for your consideration here rather than monopolising the template talk discussion. If I understand correctly, your view is that no demographic statistics should be included in infoboxes because of undue prominence, so I take it you would favour their removal from Template:Infobox UK place too. That's a big change to longstanding inclusion of demographic statistics in the infoboxes be they ethnicity or otherwise. The difference between Template:Infobox English county and UK place template is that UK Place doesn't specify a particular statistic field and it is left to editors of a particular article to decide what's included. Template counties on the other hand specifies ethnicity as the sole field, wrongly I would say. So what to do? My preference is for the following changes to the county template. a) remove ethnicity b) add two optional undefined statistical fields under both the non-metropolitan county and unitary authority sections as with UK place infobox c) let editors seek consensus on individual counties for optional statistical fields. As things stand this would remove all the ethnicity figures, but give an option to include up to two fields, which may make it easier to achieve consensus. We shouldn't assume negative connotations for ethnicity's prominence. Census ethnicity data can be utilised as a positive indication of welcomed diversity. My concern is not about the inclusion of a specific demographic but that the figures for those shown are correctly based on the latest census. Many at present are not and even worse have no source alongside. For these I agree with what you did with Beds and Bucks, i.e. blanking them, though I saw no obligation to undertake up-to-date calculations given the figures are not published for those entities and was somewhat surprised you undertook this. Rupples ( talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi again. I've placed a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Berkshire#Proposed county infobox template change. You may want to take a look. May have to amend the wording for other county projects, but wanted to get your general OK/advice. Hopefully, we'll get more input and a wider consensus to the proposed change. I think notifying the county projects is what Keith is recommending. Rupples ( talk) 09:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi JMF. For some reason, I didn't get a notification for your comment that mentions "lizardmen overlords and their human slaves"; I don't understand the comment, but no need to elaborate. I feel I've contributed more than enough to the Template Talk discussion already and don't propose to make any further points, other than respond if directly addressed. A long back and forth may deter other editors from contributing and I'd like to hear fresh voices. The number of responses so far is disappointing, but it's early days. I wonder if many active editors have the wikiprojects on watchlists? One of the reasons for the additional optional statistical infobox fields is that if we offered them it would help deflate any blowback from editors or readers after the ethnicity stats disappear. Of course, fears of a blowback may turn out to be unfounded. I don't immediately foresee much use being made of the optional fields; they wouldn't show in the article infoboxes and would be undefined in the template, unlike maybe a tendency to add data for defined fields from a sense of obligation to fill empty boxes — might be wrong though. Cheers. Rupples ( talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) amended Rupples ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I got it whilst editing 90.241.131.86 ( talk) 16:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hiya. While I don't understand the comment about Potatoes (as, other than
your own, no edit recently placed an apostrophe between the "t" and "s"), I would simply note that (following
your most recent edit) this sentence is now one of the few places in the article/sources/etc where
is used. Elsewhere in the body we have "Poots's
Poots' supporters
", "Poots' instruction
", etc. And in the sources we find "Poots' suspension"
(BBC), "Poots' decision"
(Belfast Newsletter), ""Poots' comments misplaced, sexist and outdated"
(Irish News). While I'm not interested in warring about it, I would note that (a) what we have now is at least inconsistent (within the body text and with the sources) and (b)
your initial revert of MongogramForCandy's edit actually reintroduced (rather than solved) a "Potato's" problem. Restoring
"One of Edwin Poot's sons"
. An accident undoubtedly. But be careful tossing stones from inside a glasshouse eh? :)
Guliolopez (
talk) 11:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Plural in "Foot (unit)".The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Hooke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley ( talk) 17:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Robert Hooke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Hooke for comments about the article, and Talk:Robert Hooke/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley ( talk) 18:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Not a very important question, but the key problem here are the words "in English". We are both aware that the classification as "diacritic" is language-sensitive. Tittles are not regarded as diacritics in the English alphabet, since they don't alter the base form, but they are very much diacritics in the Turkish alphabet thanks to the opposition between I and İ.
Anyway this should'nt alter the validity of my edit. The sentence in question basically says: "Of all the diacritics in the world, these ones are sometimes used in English". What you did is narrowing down the broad category "diacritics" (which globally speaking very much includes tittles) preemptively to how it's understood in a specific language alphabet, which doesn't make sense in the context, because the entire article is dedicated to the specifities of that particular language.
I also include Remsense ( talk · contribs), since they reverted me [1]. Cheers, Mai-Sachme ( talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
the key problem here are the words "in English". We are both aware that the classification as "diacritic" is language-sensitive. Tittles are not regarded as diacritics in the English alphabet, since they don't alter the base form, but they are very much diacritics in the Turkish alphabet thanks to the opposition between I and İ.
What you did is narrowing down the broad category "diacritics" (which globally speaking very much includes tittles) preemptively to how it's understood in a specific language alphabet, which doesn't make sense in the context, because the entire article is dedicated to the specifities of that particular language.
What you did is narrowing down the broad category " rhotics" (which globally speaking very much includes alveolar trills)
You objected to the phrase "various types of hyphen including the unambiguous Unicode hyphen at U+2010" claiming that
there is no such thing formally as a "Unicode hyphen", any more than there a "Unicode minus" or indeed a "Unicode plus"; these are commonly used forms of disambiguation so let's be consistent in our usages.
Where is the inconsistency? "Unicode hyphen" is totally unambiguous, unlike your use of the term "formally". "Unicode hyphen" is used in the "name=" parameter of the infobox of the Hyphen article as well as in the lead of that article. Can you suggest a better term? Not "hyphen", surely, as that's wildly ambiguous. Peter Brown ( talk) 20:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The current Unicode Standard specifies distinct characters for several different dashes, an unambiguous minus sign (sometimes called the Unicode minus) at code point U+2212, an unambigious hyphen (sometimes called the Unicode hyphen) at U+2010, the hyphen-minus at U+002D and a variety of other hyphen symbols for various uses.
Just a comment (to JMF); I just "thanked" your removal of some long list of Unicode symbols at tilde, and I was going to make a comment about it. But looking at the discussion above, hmm. Well, actually "Unicode hyphen" is a solecism. There is no such thing as a particular hyphen which is of the Unicode variety - there is only a Unicode encoding (or multiple encodings) of a hyphen. Mustn't ramble. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
Sorry for using your talk page, but I couldn't think of a better way to access you. You have shown an interest in British (Country House) Architectural History. I have suggested that Wikipedians gain access to the Country Life Archive on The Wikipedia Library ( https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/). Please feel free to support this suggestion (titled "Country Life Archive (Proquest)" on the above page) if you think this is a good idea.
Feel free to @ me here with any questions.
Cheers, EPEAviator ( talk) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The relevant quote in the sections source was:
"It is us, Europeans, who decide who comes to Europe and under what circumstances," she said. Her party's manifesto, unveiled on Wednesday, includes a controversial plan to outsource asylum applications to "safe" third countries based on the UK's 'Rwanda model'.
... But at this point I'd accept if that was factually wrong reporting as well. Pinging you just because, well, the assertion is sourced, at least. JackTheSecond ( talk) 17:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
On 27 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Hooke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in addition to his work as a scientist, Robert Hooke was an architect who designed the Monument to the Great Fire of London so that it could also have a practical value as a scientific instrument? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Hooke. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Robert Hooke), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Turns out your suspicions were correct. I noticed a pattern of edits to British currency in the Middle East by a range of IP addresses as well. So I reported both to SPI to be safe. Jahor12345 is a sock of TheCurrencyGuy.
Now I am trying to untangle the web a little. I have started a discussion at WikiProject Numismatics if you wanted to join. Thanks for your help. Regards, Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The IP server who was blocked yesterday for editing at "British currency in the Middle East" is not the editor called TheCurrencyGuy, doesn't know who he is, and has never interacted with him. Please double check the style of the edits. The IP server who you blocked yesterday also happens to have an interest in currency history and was trying to improve some articles. The in-line sourcing was yet to come, but the editor at the IP server hasn't yet figured out how to format the references. But much of the material and dates came from "All Monies of the World" by Franz Pick & Rene Sedillot, "Dictionary of the World's Currencies and Foreign Exchange", WF Spalding, and "Standard Catalog of World Coins", Krause , Mishier, and Bruce. 77.99.242.50 ( talk) 17:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
You have reverted my amendment in regard to amended the station had 2 platforms instead of one. I will state that the station was on double track and my amendment stands that it had two platforms. Steamybrian2 ( talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The IP server that was blocked at the same time as /info/en/?search=User:Jahor12345 is not connected. Both were editing simultaneously on different articles during the morning of 3rd April 2024.The IP server began with detailed edits about the Egyptian pound, and then around noon, switched over to British currency in the Middle East. Meanwhile, editor Jahor12345 was editing across a wide range of currency topics, mainly reformatting. The editing styles are completely different. The IP server carried out edits at 1204hrs and 1206hrs, while Jahor12345 carried out an edit in the middle of that two minute period at 1205hrs. They couldn't possibly be the same person. 81.134.217.27 ( talk) 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello. We would like to inform you that for various reasons our user name has changed to LendingNext. Now, in this edition of the Japanese yen page, we have included real effective exchange rate figures from 1970 to 2024, so that they can be compared with the nominal effective exchange rate. We apologise for the inconvenience. LendingNext ( talk) 20:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi JMF, I've begun working on the copy-edit you requested at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page for the article Robert Hooke. Please feel free to contact me and to correct or revert my edits if necessary. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
Hooke approximated experimental confirmation that gravity heeds an inverse square lawwhen I did the heavy copyedit and re-sourcing. (It now reads
Hooke inferred that gravity obeys an inverse square law
– 
syntax, IMO.
Hello! I don't know if we have exchanged any comments before, but if it is the first time, let me say it's a pleasure to meet you.
You have left a warning in may talk page about edit warring and the 3RR. Please let me explain the situation: I have added information to the Demographics section of the article, and my edit has been reverted, it has not been the other way around. I understood that the 3RR mainly applies to users who reverted editions, not to the ones who add information and ask reverters to discuss in the talk page (which I have).
The two users that have repeatedly reverted the edit are Wee Curry Monster (two times) and Kahastok (two times). This is not the first time that they have coordinated to revert edits. I hope you understand now that it would only be fair to post a warning in their talk pages before (or at least at the same time) that you have posted in mine. Would you please do that, or for the sake of consistency remove your warning from mine?
Regarding the specific information in the edit, you have reverted it saying "That was then, this is now - the section is about Gibraltar today". The fact is that there is a sentence in the introduction to the Gibraltar ethnic groups that explains their diversity "now" (as you say in your comment) as the product of history over 300 hundred years ("then" as you might say). It explains one source of diversity: "migration". I have only added the other source of diversity accepted in a wide multitude of reliable sources (the flight of the native population at the start of those 300 years).
You also say "Try History of Gibraltar". Many sections outside of "History of Gibraltar" include historical facts as an explanation or context of the current situation. That is only logical, I hope you agree with me. I don't think you want to delete the "then" in all of them.
That is why I have added the information. It is relevant, and it is consistent with other sections of the article.
If you have any comment, I will be glad to read you. Best regards! -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Please don't make unhelpful citation template changes as you did at Milton Keynes University Hospital. You might prefer a particular citation template but in making a change from 'publisher' to 'work', you also removed the 'website' parameter, which is very useful. If you'd like to make a substantial change like that in future, I suggest you use the article talk page. Millstream3 ( talk) 18:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)