User talk:Tóraí: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 51: Line 51:
It would make a lot more sense to try and find a form of words that recognises the controversy you know --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 11:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It would make a lot more sense to try and find a form of words that recognises the controversy you know --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 11:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry. I don't follow. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|coṁrá]])</small> 11:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry. I don't follow. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|coṁrá]])</small> 11:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
::I am suggesting that everyone calms down on the arguments etc (on more than one page) and attempt to agree what can be said and then see if there is a way forward. --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 11:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:32, 24 October 2009

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Heteracanthocephalidae

Hi you edited this page, but I'm afraid you've lost information by doing the citations in this way. Author citations are written in brackets if the species in question was originally placed in a different genus. Otherwise no brackets. It is also tradition to do the small author citations after each species, and not in the reference section. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talkcontribs) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus. This is a general encyclopedia. Atypical referencing conventions from specific disciplines will be unknown to our readers. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, nevertheless, thousands upon thousands of wiki pages of taxonomic classification already uses this convention, it would be wonky to have one page on parasitic worm be the one out, and the current way does convey more information to those who do care about the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talkcontribs) 23:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. There's merit to it and it doesn't hurt. I would suggest however that the sub heads be de-linked. Having links in subheadings can cause problems for users with accessibility issues (as well as looking bad IMHO) - but I'll leave it to you to make your mind up on that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for taking interest in that article, but even though its a special, it's still an episode of a TV show. Therefore, the title should be in quotes, not italicized. I reverted them back to quotes, so I hope you understand. Thanks :) The Flash {talk} 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the distinction and had thought practice was to use italics in all cases. Learn something new every day :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, Yup, no problem. The Flash {talk} 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for the typeface collaboration

Requesting editors' help

There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - Damërung . -- 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

Hi there. I'm sure, like me, you believe that Northern Ireland should not even exist - that is irrelevant in the present discussion. The reality is that a consensus was achieved that each of the four 'entities' that together constitute the United Kingdom would be described as 'countries that are part of the United Kingdom' with 'part of' linking to the Countries of the United Kingdom' article. If you attempt to change the article, you will find yourself being reverted by a large number of editors. I do not say this as a threat, but just to suggest that you may end up wasting a load of time on this for absolutely no benefit. Could I suggest there are many areas where I am sure your interests and knowledge could make a real contribution - how about the articles concerning the use of Irish language in Northern Ireland/expansion of Irish medium education etc? I have tried to do some work on Gaelic Medium Education in Scotland in the face of opposition from some editors who objected to articles in English wikipedia having titles in Gaelic, even when the name of the school the article was about was a gaelic name! My point is, I am sure you could make a real difference if you devoted your efforts to issues where you can achieve something - your efforts to change the lead sentence in this article will certainly prove fruitless. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fishiehelper2 - First, we need to leave politics behind. What we (you, I or anyone else) want for the future of Northern Ireland is irrevelent. The same goes for Scotland/England. I hadn't looked at the Northern Ireland article for a while. I can remember a long time back the trouble WRT Scotland ("nation", "country", etc.). The present solution may work well on the Scotland, England articles (or at least I'm not going to comment). Specifically, with regard to Northern Ireland though, it's a crud that I can only imagine was designed to resolve problems elsewhere.
Describing Northern Ireland (baldly) as a "country", as one of the sources I supplieds says, is "blatantly absurd". "Constituent country" is fine (although it would not my prefernce). If, as you say, removing the claim will result in a shed-load of editors coming down up me then the way forward is a community RFC, dispute resolution or so forth. Do you really want to air your dirty lenin in public? (That's not a threat either.)
The content for one article cannot be decided through horse-trading on another two. The (bald) statement that "Northern Ireland is a country" is contradicted by published sources (and the sources that proportedly support the claim are a synthesis that has been given undue weight). Our POV on the matter is independent of that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I don't know what 'dirty linen' I have but in any case have no problem if you want to push this matter. However, please don't misrepresent the argument to make your point - the article does not state "Northern Ireland is a country" without further qualification. It states "Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". Anyway, we may just have to differ on this issue - Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A bear is an animal that lives in the woods." In order for this statement to be correct, the two insdividual statesments that it makes must be true: "A bear is an animal." and "A bear lives in the woods."
"Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". As with the bear example, the two parts of this statement must be independently correct in order for the whole to be true. It is true to say that, "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom." Without qualification, however, it is not truthful to say that, "Northern Ireland is a country."
"Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom" is entirely correct. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your deductive logic - a 'constituent country' needs to be a 'country' and also requires to be a constituent of something - so you are happy for Northern Ireland to be called a country if if has the adjective 'constituent' placed in front of it? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of words change when we modify them with other words like "constituent". Northern Ireland is not a "country" in the ordinary sense of the word (or in the same sense that Scotland or England are called countries). In terms of the UK, "constituent country" has a specific meaning, distinct from what is ordinarly understood by "country" alone. My perference would simply be "a part of" - there is no need or usefullness in bringing in controversial or not readily understood terms in the introduction, they can simply be left to the body of an article where they can be explained in context more easily. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably risking my life in telling ya this. I actually understand the argument for 'province' (which is amazing, with my past 'consistancy arguments'). Within my country, its 13 divisions are not all named the same - we've got 10 provinces & 3 territories. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. (I thought all Canadian "provinces" were called "provinces".) The origin/significances of the distinction in terms between the unit parts Canada is of course different to that of the UK, but I'm happy you can appreciate that "consistency" is not a prerequisite.
BTW, I'm not advocating "province", but baldly saying "NI is a country" is a definite no no - whatever about Scotland and England.
(p.s. you know who I am don't you?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country

Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Stuart's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It would make a lot more sense to try and find a form of words that recognises the controversy you know --Snowded TALK 11:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't follow. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that everyone calms down on the arguments etc (on more than one page) and attempt to agree what can be said and then see if there is a way forward. --Snowded TALK 11:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]