| Revision as of 04:42, 22 February 2013 editLittleBenW (talk | contribs)8,599 edits →RfC formatting← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:40, 22 February 2013 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 48h) to User talk:Apteva/Archive 6.Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> - ] (]) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) | I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> - ] (]) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Greetings == | |||
| Good to see you back editing the ] articles again. It really is what you do best. ] (]) 06:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * He's also good at helping people with RM bot problems—he's helped me at least once—but sometimes his kind help is not appreciated (see above) :-(. People should at least say thanks. ] (]) 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| That is he or she thank you. Those who disagree must learn to accept disagreement and not try to stifle it. Unfortunately I can only work on solar articles right now, but that is being appealed. ] (]) 15:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == notification of current state of ] over at WT:MoS == | |||
| Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the ] over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there <small>(beginning with "As there has been little progress")</small>, which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) ''without'' there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal <small>(should I also have put an RfC tag there?)</small> and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ] (]) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Having "rules discussion" at MOS is an oxymoron. WP has no firm rules, and the MOS is a guideline. Most of it should properly be recast as essays. As to the five letter rule, the actual rule is that unimportant words in a title are not capitalized, such as short prepositions. This is not a Misplaced Pages rule, it is a rule of how titles are chosen. Also titles are not a MOS issue. We never capitalize any of our section headings, and use sentence case instead. When we title articles we follow ] policy to choose those titles, which are also sentence case except for proper nouns such as book, movie, and song titles, in which case we use whatever the actual title is, and not something that we dream up using "guidelines". While it is helpful in wikilinking to use sentence case for article titles, we have no justification for using sentence case for section headings, other than to make us look consistent in our headings. If it ever came up I would certainly vote to eliminate sentence case for section headings, but not for article titles, and if and only if that went through would MOS need to be discussing four and five letter prepositions in titles, and then only in section headings that we make up. ] (]) 16:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Irrespective of whether or not I agree with what you ''would like'' things to be, it's certainly not what they ''are''. Did you even ''read'' the discussion? Like, click on the very first link there: the decisions to move ''From Noon Till Three'' and ''From Dusk Till Dawn'' to ''From Noon till Three'' and ''From Dusk till Dawn'', respectively, ''were'' based on the "shorter than five letters" rule. As long as the MoS is used prescriptively (again, no matter whether one thinks it ''should''), we better make sure it's grounded in reality. That's why I plead for prop 2. – ] (]) 17:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages does not make things up. From Noon Till Three has a title, whatever it is, that is established by whoever created it, and as accepted by the public, which sometimes adopts a different title. As pointed out above the actual rule followed in choosing titles has nothing to do with how many letters a word has but if it is an important word in the title. If whoever created it thought that til was an important word in the title, they would have capitalized it for that reason, and if they capitalized it and the public normally capitalizes til, in that title, that is what Misplaced Pages should be using. For Misplaced Pages to be discussing how we should be titling such things at the MOS is pointless. We use the policies at ], not guidelines at WP:MOS for titles, and any discussion at WP:MOS is completely beyond the scope of the MOS. ] (]) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I happen to think there's a bit more grey to the issue (like, oftentimes, an official capitalization for a title is not available or known ; "the" public might be evenly divided in which of several options they "accept" etc.), but I take note of the fact that you consider the discussion I pointed you to invalid in and of itself. Also, I just saw that you seem to be entangled in some kind of MoS topics-oriented trouble, and I wouldn't want to cause an aggravation of the situation by drawing you into a possibly related discussion. Regards – ] (]) 19:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All true, except that we use ] policy, not MOS to choose titles. ] (]) 19:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == MOS and TITLE again? == | == MOS and TITLE again? == | ||
Revision as of 12:40, 22 February 2013
 Archives | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Welcome!
Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
MOS and TITLE again?
Your recent remarks about MOS at and seem to signal a return to battle over WP:MOS and WP:TITLE after your recent block. Some of your latest edits do give the appearance of trying to test your topic ban. You have been given some good advice to engage in a different field of activity; I hope you take it. —Neotarf (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Photovoltaic power station
Thanks for your comment. I have responded thereunder. Grateful for your views on proposed changes to the List of photovoltaic power stations.
Belated thanks, also, for the GA nomination. Following you suggestion, a large number of references have been added, but it was still rejected. It seems to be down to the subjective view of a random reviewer. Anyway I think the article reads pretty well, and it's got lots of good data.--MrRenewables (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC formatting
Hi Apteva,
If you have the time, I'd appreciate advice or help on the Talk:Microsoft Windows/Multilingual support RfC. Somebody else posted this talk page discussion as an RfC, but—when I refactored it—it seems to have confused the RfC bot's indenting algorithm (the RfCs after this one are all indented). Not a great problem, but if you have time... LittleBen (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I took out the link in the section heading and added a timestamp. That should fix it. Apteva (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your trouble. LittleBen (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)