A random style tip:

Another styletip ... Pluralizing abbreviations Acronyms and initialisms, like other nouns, become plurals by adding -s or -es: they produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; the laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006. As with other nouns, no apostrophe is used unless the form is a possessive. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~ (four tildes will expand into your signature).
I will reply here, and expect you to be watching my user talk page, even if you are Nyttend.

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	I could not find a barnstar for standing up to an outrageously unjust block so you get a special one. Hang in there. В²C ☎ 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For your work in standardising article titles in line with the now consistent MOS:JR guidance, I present you this accolade. Your continued work in this regard, and in others, has been appreciated. It may have taken years, but much was accomplished. RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing broken this time. However, the convention for WP:Route diagram templates is generally title case. (I really must get around to writing an WP:MOS for RDTs.) Note that the issue of ‘Branch Line’ vs ‘branch line’ is particularly sensitive—see this discussion for more.) I leave the decision up to you if you wish to revert this diagramme’s title. Useddenim (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think it would be good to have different style guidelines for RDT template titles than for all other titles and headings? Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries for your recent edits and article moves explain your thinking, but shed little light on the information that you consider supports your actions. Why do you think the line is the "Cumbrian Coast" line ? If you were a local you would be aware, or if you did a quick Google you would discover, that Cumbrian Coast Line (with that capitalisation) is a proper name (adopted for marketing purposes) for the rail service running along the coast of Cumbria (the Cumbrian coast). I am unaware (both as a local and after a Google) of 'Cumbrian Coast' being routinely used as a proper name for the coast of Cumbria. Therefore "Cumbrian Coast Line" is defensible; so (at a pinch) is "Cumbrian coast line" (although it clearly runs a risk of being mistaken for "Cumbrian coastline") ; there is nothing to support "Cumbrian Coast line", which is your preferred capitalisation. Please revert your changes, or come up with some supporting references. Regards Rjccumbria (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I do this book search, the first page of 10 hits has 7 "Cambrian Coast line" and no "Cambrian Coast Line". Seems pretty clear that it's not treated as a proper name, and where it is, the marketing entity, is not really what the article is about. Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful that your decapitalisation of "Line" is valid, so that links don't get broken. This isn't just a case of, for example, making sure that a blue link isn't turned red, but also in templates with little "v-t-e" links top left (a navbar), you need to ensure that these still link to the template itself, and not through any redirect that may (or may not) exist. For example Template:Manchester to Preston Line where I've just needed to make this edit to fix your breakage (Template:Manchester to Preston line doesn't exist). For RDTs based on {{BS-map}} or {{routemap}}, the |navbar= parameter must match the template name exactly (omitting the prefix "Template:"); but for RDTs based on {{BS-header}}, it's the second positional parameter; for navboxes, it's the |name= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation. I will watch for such magic features in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All this stuff about capitalising the "L" in rail lines is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Line. Please reach a consensus there before moving any more. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) 20:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really just a matter of whether these names are treated by sources as proper names or not. For all the ones I've looked up, they are not. Do you see some that are? Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Darren Sharper. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moazzam Begg. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dicklyon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding A. G. Pless Jr. House, have you consulted http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Galax/113-5032_A.G.Pless,Jr.House_2002_Final_Nomination.pdf? Regardless of anything else, the source itself uses the comma, and by removing it in the source's title you're misrepresenting the source: that's a hoax, and hoaxes are not tolerated. Moreover, the comma is in the National Register listing name; the only time that the NR listing name is not presented identically is when it's turned around (in that case, the only things changed are the name formats, with no additional details removed), so the result is a hoax as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not a hoax as much as a good faith edit (lots of discussion about commas in Wikipedia the last couple of years, so "hoax" is assuming something else). But isn't there some kind of policy that Jr. commas are kept in a name if it is a name of a place or thing? That's one reason why I had such a problem with changing the commas for some of the Martin Luther King names, such as his D.C. Memorial, and that library. Randy Kryn 22:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Randy. I realize not everyone agrees with WP:JR, but this is clearly not a hoax. Perhaps Nyttend missed all that? Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a hoax is just a chocolate cigarette (remember when those used to be sold in every grocery store?). And although some had opposing povs, WP:JR seems settled law for biographies of individuals, which is where WP:JR resides. Yet Nyttend and others may still have concerns about if a named historical site, such as a persons publicly opened home, named museum, or memorial, should retain the comma due to their real-world names or should be publicly stripped of the little bugger for site-wide consistency. Is there language somewhere which carries the WP:JR decision over to named places? If not, maybe the guideline should be amended after discussion to contain "official" language that the WP:JR decision either does or does not cover articles about such sites. Some closes have extended the commaless style to objects, such as the recent Hank Williams, Jr. album decision. Yet as far as I know, not being a wiki-lawyer, there is no specific language covering those closes aside from using WP:JR as regards biographies, which, if the case, does leave room for Nyttend's concern. Randy Kryn 15:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus for styling Jr. in articles not about people is the same, as evidenced by various RM discussions, including:

• Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway#Requested move 15 May 2016
• Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site#Requested_move_28_June_2016
• Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue#Requested move 01 July 2016
• Talk:Hank Williams Jr.'s Greatest Hits#Requested move 10 September 2016

I don't think the question has come up on an NHRP listing, but it's pretty clear that the way the names are typed on the forms are nothing special, and not highly correlated with how the various places are referred to in sources. Styles vary, so we use WP style. Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend:. Here's an example of a source that uses no comma, but is evidently not copied from WP, due to the different styling of the initials: [1]. Clearly not a hoax. Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Category:The Shirelles songs got moved to Category:Shirelles songs since The Beatles song category does not contain "the". The Beatles song category that is being referred to is blanked and redirects to the category that contains "the". Is there a Wikipedia policy that states that "the" should not be used? If not it is probably best that the category is moved back to the original name. LongLiveMusic (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about that Beatles category. But we should fix it. See n-grams, which shows that "The Beatles songs" is not a phrase anyone ever uses. Dicklyon (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than being as bold as I was with The Shirelles, I've opened a discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_28. Dicklyon (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

---

Details and RSVP here.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I'm glad that editors like you are around, who will point out mistakes and not fix it themselves and also put a condescending edit summary to suggest that the editor is incapable. You're one of the people who voted, so your close reversal is nothing short of INVOLVED. I won't be reinstating the close, as per your request. Thanks and happy editing! :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 08:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm profusely sorry for forgetting about /dated → /old. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 08:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a procedure for challenging closures that we think were poorly done. In my view, you should revert yourself and if you wish to challenge it follow the procedure. Or, if its merely a formatting/housekeeping matter of how the closing was done, fix it, or work with QEDK to fix it, or tell QEDK you waive edit war claims if QEDK will take another crack at it. Just showing up and reverting a close that went against your position on the matter without any of these efforts at good process leaves bad tastes all around. In my view, Q's mistake was clerical, yours was process and community-damaging. I think you have the bigger repair job to do. Thanks for considering it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave him a note. Dicklyon (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize the error you made on my talk page regarding the "and the date" clause of your four tildes explanation. As far as I understand Wikipedia's wiki syntax, two dashes -- are required for a date-&-time stamp. Therefore a syntactically correct "date-&-time stamp" + "signature" would be --~~~~ --Benjamin Richards (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I just use four tildes, and it appears that my comments are both signed and dated as a result. Your mileage may vary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC) PS See Wikipedia:Signatures#Preferred_option... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a Template:Welcome. Are you saying it needs to be improved? I think you are wrong. Four tildes is generally all that's used. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that: after skimming or reading through several dozen help or special pages related to the options available for the customization of a user's preferences, settings, gadgets or beta features I noticed that almost all of them as it relates to Safari are either outdated, obsolete, wrong or incomplete, not just the Template:Welcome (which I admit I have not yet read) needs improvement.--Benjamin Richards (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just wanted to verify that this has nothing to do with me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon - why have you moved this to a new page title? The 'Heart of Wales Line' is a proper name and surely deserves appropriate capitalisation? ie H,W & L? See for example http://www.howlta.org.uk/english/default.htm or http://www.scenicwales.co.uk/en/howlf.htm or https://www.facebook.com/TheHeartofWalesRailwayLine or http://www.lovellandovery.co.uk/community/trains-heart-of-wales-line/ - yes, you will also find some with a lower case 'L' but the majority recognise it as a proper noun. thanks Geopersona (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the threshold for treatment as a proper noun is "consistently capitalized in sources". I had checked, and this didn't appear to be the case on this one. A great number of books use lowercase "line" on this one, as on most others (of course the "Heart of Wales Line Forum" and "Heart of Wales Line Travellers' Association" also show up there, and are proper names). Books are high-quality sources; promotional web pages and Facebook pages are not representative of how the term is treated in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just so you know, I've reverted the page move for Wirral Line - the official name, as used by the line operator Merseytravel capitalises the 'L'.[2] Do let me know if you disagree, am happy to be corrected if you think there's a valid reason for de-capitalisation! Mike1901 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike1901:, even the operator doesn't cap it consistently. See this and this and this. Lot's of news articles use lowercase, too. Also quite a few independent sources, e.g. many of these books. So per MOS:CAPS we shouldn't treat it as if it's a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Thanks for the rationale. In that case I have no strong feelings about it being moved - though Northern Line (Merseyrail) needs the same treatment too for consistency if that is done. Mike1901 (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki and open-source enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

Before and after the brief presentation we allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks.

---

In addition, this month we will have:

• a brief presentation from User:Cullen328 (Jim Heaphy) about the Wikipedia Teahouse
• spontaneous lightning talks from the floor
• community announcements from the floor

---

For details and to RSVP see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, December 2016

---

See you soon! Ben Creasy and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

+++++
P.S. Any help spreading the word through social media or other avenues is most welcome! We plan to announce this on various sites and invite various groups; if you would like to join in, check our meta planning page, and please note any announcements you are sending out: meta:Monthly WikiSalon in San Francisco#Announcements and promotion

Please feel free to add to, refine, reorganize or edit the above linked page: it is a wiki!

We need more helpers and organizers, so if you see a need, please jump in, or talk to us about it! You can add your username to the meta page where appropriate, or create a new role!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and happy holiday season. The Steamboat Bill, Jr. question seems like one to discuss further, as it is such an iconic film with a known name. I know the question has been kicked around so much, but this one really is in the category of an art masterpiece, and I wouldn't feel right with myself if I didn't contest it. Make sense? I wish I could attend one of these well attended wikievents, would be fun to hoist back a beer or something with you. Randy Kryn 04:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to one; met Checkingfax and some other people; come to SF and join us some time. I don't mind discussing the Steamboat; just didn't like the undiscussed comma insertion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't like commas in name (even though the correct way, outside of Wikipedia, is to use them), but you shouldn't have moved the article because now it is at the WRONG name. The name of the act is the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" (WITH a comma). I couldn't leave a comment in the talkthread because everytime I tried posting, it said there was a blacklisted link in the talk page (examiner).

That is incorrect. The DOJ lists it as "The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C. § 249", with 2 commas and other stuff. That's their style. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a unrelated note, I don't know why the admins of Wikipedia decided to make names look ugly by removing commas, when the standard practice in the English language is to use commas before "Jr." and "Sr." 67.253.250.154 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of things are not handled by admins, but by a consensus of editors, who in this case took advice mainly from books on English style and usage, which have pretty much all converted over to the no-comma style, starting with the third edition of Strunk & White's The Elements of Style in 1979. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 South Korean protests. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you moving rail line articles that are titular rather than descriptive, like Woodhead Line? I'm sure that wasn't agreed anywhere? G-13114 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That particular one is half lowercase in news and books, so not a proper name per MOS:CAPS (and it wasn't even consistently capitalized in the article). The reason I'm working on these is that some editors expressed the feeling that after we fixed a bunch of caps in a big RM, the set of English railway articles would be left with inconsistent caps on line; so I'm trying to help, moving all toward MOS compliance. Do let me know if you see any that you think really should be treated as proper names; I think I've looked at news and books for each one to see if it's treated as a proper by reliable sources, but could have messed up. Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you can only justify decapping the titles if the name is descriptive e.g. Xxx to xxx Line. If there is ambiguity over whether a name is an official title or not it might be best to leave it as it could cause arguments. I think examples like Woodhead Line are arguable at best. It was pointed out that this would cause these problems. G-13114 (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. What problem is being caused? What is your theory about "official title" that leads to wanting caps where reliable sources so often use lowercase? Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we would only use caps if it's a proper name, as indicated by being consistently capped in sources. This one is lowercase in every 20th century book. Did something happen to turn it into a proper name since then, long after it was closed? Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I am not removing them without good reason. Just because something is less idiomatic does not make it incorrect. Please cite some high-quality sources to verify that the copyediting is making things worse since I very strongly disagree with your assessment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're making it incorrect; just less good. I don't have sources that talk about your edits, but per WP:BRD, maybe you should attempt to show guides that justify that what you're doing is an improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bold edit so it doesn't qualify under BRD. As you said immediately above, it sounds like you're taking issue with style rather than true accuracy so I think the onus falls squarely on you in this matter. I should have known better than to go to GOCE for assistance. I'll be wary of that in the future. In the future, I would recommend reconsidering how you approach other Wikipedia editors so that you sound more constructive/collaborative, especially on initial contact. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that advice. I do tend to be a bit brusque. But please stop removing commas without good reason; and share your reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @TylerDurden8823: Content questions aside, noting the posting of constructive criticism here, including suggestion on "how you approach other Wikipedia editors", one minute after dismissive removal of Dicklyon's constructive criticism as "nonsense". While your comments may have merit, do beware pot/kettle. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except that reaction was elicited by the initial approach so it's important to be mindful of that, Mandruss. Dick, I still disagree with your comments about the commas and value of idiomatic language and think the onus is on you to demonstrate that you're right here as previously discussed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you're in the "justifiable disrespect" camp. That's probably a majority among the more vocal editors, but I will continue to speak out against it as long as I edit Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Mandruss. If you'd like to express an opinion on the actual edits in question, that might be good. I'm willing to be outvoted if others prefer his way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi, everybody.

We are excited to remind you of the ninth in the Bay Area WikiSalon series that is coming up this Wednesday evening at 6 p.m.

• Details (RSVP suggested) here (RSVP helps us know how much food and drink to bring in)

What is a WikiSalon? A monthly safe and inclusive meatspace event conducted in organized chaos and we all clean up the mess afterwards. Livestream links for the presentation are available during presentation months, and will be forthcoming for those of you that cannot attend. December is a presentation month.

---

Hope to see you there! Wayne (and Ben) - co-organizers
Any last minute questions or suggestions? Please ping or email Ben or me. | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your move, as it was undiscussed and without consensus. I've initiated a discussion at WT:UKT as the issue is not just confined to this article. You are welcome to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took what was useful out of that article and merged it into Bulletproof diet. Why do you want to retain this promotional garbage in Wikipedia? Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Bulletproof coffee is much more notable than the diet. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The diet is the broader topic. What a waste of time over a garbage fad diet. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the merge discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to revert your changes of "narrow gauge" to "narrow-gauge". It seems premature to make this change while the discussion is ongoing. As I mention in my comments at Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways, the correct usage in British English is "narrow gauge". Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that omitting the hyphen would be incorrect or non-British. Just that the hyphen helps the reader parse the compound construction. Also, per book n-grams in British English, using the hyphen seems to be by far more common than not using the hyphen. Of course, in proper names of companies, museums, institutions, etc., it's different, as it's more conventional to omit the hyphen in those cases. So, yes, it may be premature on the one in the RM discussion, but on the others it seems uncontroversial, don't you agree? Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I don't agree, and the usual Wikipedia process is to wait for a debate to end before making a change, isn't it? Clearly we are debating more than just the one article at Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways. Railfan23 (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Railfan23—I saw this thread title on my watchlist and was irritated to see that it lacked a hyphen. I came here to insert it, but I won't, since it's your own title and is to do with your entreaty. It particularly needs a hyphen in a noun group as long as "British narrow-gauge slate railways". If regulars have become negligent in this respect, it's only because they've become blithely used to the grouping and, unlike us, don't have to actively parse it. Tony (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am perplexed that despite my respectful and polite request, you have gone ahead and changed dozens of article titles from "narrow gauge" to "narrow-gauge", when the matter is still under discussion. This sort of unilateral mass change is very much against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Please revert your changes until the discussion at Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways is complete. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not in general change "narrow gauge" to "narrow-gauge". Only where the compound is used as a modifier. See Hyphen#Compound modifiers and MOS:HYPHEN.

I see my hyphen-fixing work as pretty orthogonal to the point of that discussion, which is about Britain versus Wales, at which you for some reason are opposing the hyphen. Why? Even if the majority of British newspapers omit the hyphen, why should we? The hyphen is clearly acceptable, and clarifies the parse for the reader. Is writing as clearly as possible for the unfamiliar reader not among our goals here? I think it is. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate threads running in that discussion. You are clearly aware that the hyphenation issue is being discussed: is the one you have predominantly engaged with. It is disingenuous to participate in the debate, then claim that there is no debate and you are "just" doing "uncontested work". It is very clearly contested. You were the one that made the argument that common usage should guide us. The WP:SSF guidelines you quoted say we should use "...observation of what is most commonly done in reliable general-audience publications like newspapers and non-specialized magazines and websites" to guide style decisions. As soon as I show you exactly this, it is irrelevant? That's not how it works. Stop moving the goal posts and engage in the debate instead of acting unilaterally. Railfan23 (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was uncontested; but it's pretty routine, and I've done similarly on hundreds or perhaps thousands of articles unrelated to the narrow gauge, usually without any pushback. I don't understand why you're objecting to the clarifying hyphens, and why you want them removed. Can you explain? And has anyone else objected? And while common usage is part of what we consult, we do have our own reasons for choosing a style, which is usually to do the reader a favor in making the text easy to understand. Happy New Year! Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the hyphenation because in my opinion it makes the text harder to read, not easier. When readers come across unnecessary hyphenation it stops the flow of their reading. It is not how this term is written in either general or specialist usage. There is a reason I can find all those newspapers preferring "narrow gauge": because that is how the term is used. You are the one who said that WP:SSF should be followed. You are the one who said we should follow general usage. Suddenly none of what you said before is valid? Why is WP:SSF no longer valid? Why is the general usage that you argued for not valid? Address the arguments instead of imposing your own opinion on Wikipedia. Railfan23 (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd view of how hyphens work in reading. Have you read any style and grammar guides about what they do for readers? It's quite the opposite of stopping the flow; by indicating which word pair to group together as a single concept, it makes the reading much easier (at least to readers who are familiar with hyphens in English, which should be essentially all English-language readers). See Tony's comments above. I think that you're still following a specialist style fallacy when you note that train buffs are used to omitting it, since they don't need any help in grouping a compound that is so familiar to them. To the general audience, however, unfamiliar with guages, it's helpful to let them know that what is narrow is the gauge, not the slate, the route, the company, the line, the museum, etc. The best-edited sources – books – overwhelmingly hyphenate this term when it is used a modifier before another noun. Sometimes like in this book you'll see it with and without hyphen on the same page, because they're following the usual rules of English grammar and style that help the reader parse the phrases. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man, when an editor ends up on the bad side of Dicklyon and EEng on the same MOS issue [3] you just know he's got some truly lousy karma. EEng 03:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dick. Thank you for your good faith edits to do with the hyphenation of narrow and standard gauge railways. However, you should be aware that, while it may be standard practice in US English to hyphenate these words (e.g. Proceedings of the National Narrow-Gauge Railway Convention), it is normal in British English not to do so (e.g. Narrow Gauge Railway Society and books like the Narrow Gauge Railways of Britain). So I have reverted a couple of your recent edits as Wikipedia doesn't have a preference for regional spellings and we're encouraged not to change from one to the other unless there's a regional connexion. Hope that's okay. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use search-and-replace to make changes like this and to "replace" a human editor. See here. If it was that easy, we'd use 'bots to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really did mess up on that one article. Usually I carefully review the changes that search-and-replace does, but obviously I screwed up on that one, and I apologize. Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ber, I don't think there's a Br/Am issue here at all. See #Narrow gauge railways section up-page discussing this. Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's agree to differ on the Br/Am bit. Regardless of whether there's a regional trend, a vast number of sources do NOT use the hyphen, so there is no good reason to be mass converting "narrow gauge" to "narrow-gauge". In one case you've changed the actual official English name of the company. Your link illustrates that what you're doing is contentious, so could I ask you to please would you revert your recent changes. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't done so, can you take a few minutes and see if you can add to List of pioneers in computer science, especially on the topic of mouse/keypad innovation (I don't see anyone listed pertaining to the topic). Anyone within arms length? Ran across this list and did 'See also' distributions and redirect page creations. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they got Engelbart. You're not suggesting I add myself are you? Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will watch later, thanks. I checked the history and you haven't edited it, so I thought you may know of others in the field who'd you'd add, and if you weren't you but a historian knowing what you know would you be included? If so, as a Wikipedian just trying to edge the project towards its impossible completeness, I'll be adding to the list. Randy Kryn 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Engelbart was certainly a computer pioneer. Most others who developed pointing devices and such were not, in my estimation. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most everyone I thought of to add was already there. Except David Patterson (computer scientist) and Lynn Conway. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good viewing, have about 20 minutes to go. Since it's not my field I really can't judge about inclusion in the pioneer list (I did add Alan Perlis yesterday, but he seemed obvious), and possibly you could decide if Patterson and Conway do belong. Conway should probably be added here, maybe you can work up the language. Personally I think the invention of the workable optical mouse rises above basic hardware and hovers near pioneer status due to ease of access and usability, and fits the criteria of the pioneer list's short lead, but can also see how Engelbart's inclusion represents all later refinements and innovations. Randy Kryn 12:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making page moves yourself when you don't like the outcome of a discussion. I closed the discussion Talk:British_narrow-gauge_slate_railways#Requested_move_30_December_2016 as not moved, and you promptly moved it 30 minutes later. If you have an issue with the way I closed something, take it up on my talk page or appeal to WP:MRV. Don't just move it yourself — that kind of thing will get you blocked. Bradv 15:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]