User talk:Shadow007
I will reply on this page to all messages posted.
Capitalization of honorific titles[edit]
Thank you for your comment at Talk:Chief executive officer. As you can see, I have withdrawn the RM proposal after considering the issue you raised. However, a related issue is bothering me and I would like your opinion. I assume that you would agree that only one of these two articles has the proper article title: Kentucky colonel and Nebraska Admiral. Which one do you think is correct, and why? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: You need to remember that WP:JOBTITLES is part of the Manual of Style which covers article content, not articles titles. WP:NCCAPS applies to article titles. Whilst consistency is one of the five objectives of article title naming (WP:CRITERIA), the overall objective is to produce the most accurate and natural title based upon English language sources. So the mere fact that the two articles you refer to have different capitalisation does not mean that one is necessarily incorrect. It really comes down to how they are referred to in sources (principally secondary sources but primary sources are relevant too). If the current capitalisation is how they how referred to in all or most sources, then the article titles are right even though they have different capitalisation. Shadow007 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't perceive a big difference between what we would do for caps in a title and in the article body – and I especially I doubt we would uppercase every word in a title and not do the same in the body. I think most sources would tend to capitalize these two titles even though they are clearly not proper names – but many sources have a different house style than Wikipedia and tend to overcapitalize in general. I believe many sources would also capitalize chief executive officer, grand prince, lord mayor, grand duke, and prince regent, although Wikipedia does not (at least not generally in the articles with those titles). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: The point I was making about WP:JOBTITLES is that it is providing a range of examples of how to refer to offices, both specific and generic, in sentences. I think it is wrong to talk about a 'house style' in Wikipedia because, at the end of the day, as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia should reflect not promote. The relevance of sources is going to vary. Sources are very relevant to a single office/position/title such as Kentucky colonel but far less relevant to ordinary English words in a generic office/position/title such as grand duke. I agree that there may well be sources that refer to grand duke generically with capitals but these are going to be less relevant because we are dealing with ordinary english words and not a proper name. Compare e.g. Grand Wizard for a case of ordinary English words referring to a fairly specific office therefore capitalised. I always try to approach these issues on a case by case basis with the broad objectives of the relevant policies and guidelines in mind but without being rigidly focussed on them. There's a lot of WP:COMMONSENSE involved. You may wish to investigate the sources relating to Kentucky colonel and if they clearly favour a different title you could propose a WP:RM but my view would be that no move is justified simply because other positions, e.g. Nebraska Admiral (isn't that state landlocked??), are fully capitalised. Shadow007 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the further reply. We seem to have some difference of opinion about having a "house style". Yes, Nebraska is thoroughly landlocked. The Nebraska Admiral article refers to it as "the only triply landlocked U.S. state." Apparently, when bestowing honorific titles, Nebraska does not take itself too seriously. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: No worries. "House style" is just not a term I like probably because I associate it with font, spacing and justification debates in documents I use at work! To the extent that we should strive for consistency, which is a form of "house style" that is important but not the only important criterion. E.g. if no primary or secondary source referred to a Kentucky colonel as a "Kentucky Colonel" then I would not think that Wikipedia should use caps. Shadow007 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the further reply. We seem to have some difference of opinion about having a "house style". Yes, Nebraska is thoroughly landlocked. The Nebraska Admiral article refers to it as "the only triply landlocked U.S. state." Apparently, when bestowing honorific titles, Nebraska does not take itself too seriously. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: The point I was making about WP:JOBTITLES is that it is providing a range of examples of how to refer to offices, both specific and generic, in sentences. I think it is wrong to talk about a 'house style' in Wikipedia because, at the end of the day, as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia should reflect not promote. The relevance of sources is going to vary. Sources are very relevant to a single office/position/title such as Kentucky colonel but far less relevant to ordinary English words in a generic office/position/title such as grand duke. I agree that there may well be sources that refer to grand duke generically with capitals but these are going to be less relevant because we are dealing with ordinary english words and not a proper name. Compare e.g. Grand Wizard for a case of ordinary English words referring to a fairly specific office therefore capitalised. I always try to approach these issues on a case by case basis with the broad objectives of the relevant policies and guidelines in mind but without being rigidly focussed on them. There's a lot of WP:COMMONSENSE involved. You may wish to investigate the sources relating to Kentucky colonel and if they clearly favour a different title you could propose a WP:RM but my view would be that no move is justified simply because other positions, e.g. Nebraska Admiral (isn't that state landlocked??), are fully capitalised. Shadow007 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't perceive a big difference between what we would do for caps in a title and in the article body – and I especially I doubt we would uppercase every word in a title and not do the same in the body. I think most sources would tend to capitalize these two titles even though they are clearly not proper names – but many sources have a different house style than Wikipedia and tend to overcapitalize in general. I believe many sources would also capitalize chief executive officer, grand prince, lord mayor, grand duke, and prince regent, although Wikipedia does not (at least not generally in the articles with those titles). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: I received the same question, so will reply here to centralize discussion. We would capitalize in these cases because the articles are about the title as such; they are not being used descriptively. It's the difference between "Donald Trump is the weirdest American president, ever" and "Donald Trump was elected to the office of President of the United States." This really has nothing to do with Chief executive officer which is a generic job title and would never be capitalized at all (in encyclopedic versus marketing style) except when glued to an individual name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I dug through the cited sources in that article and I also found that all of them appear to capitalize both words, so this seems pretty solid. I self-reverted after what happened with CEO, but at this point I think I'll proceed to uppercase the KC article. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's basically an award, and as such it's a proper name when addressed as the award itself. E.g. Academy Award, Nobel Prize, Congressional Medal of Honor, Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, etc.. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I dug through the cited sources in that article and I also found that all of them appear to capitalize both words, so this seems pretty solid. I self-reverted after what happened with CEO, but at this point I think I'll proceed to uppercase the KC article. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear User:Shadow007
As a member of the "WikiProject Australian rules football" it would be good to hear your opinion on a current debate occurring on the 2018 AFL season talk page.
The debate centres around whether or not a third column should be included in the club attendance table to display "home state games vs. interstate opposition".
The main justification is that Victorian clubs play on average 7 home derbies each year compared to non-victorian clubs who play only 1 home derby each year. This provides an average home figure for Victorian clubs which is inflated as their home games have the fans of other Victorian clubs attending.
Please provide whether you support or oppose this proposal for the third column in AFL Club attendance tables.
Sincerely:Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Shadow007. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Storyteller (Alfie Boe album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page It's Now or Never (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Invite to Join WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia[edit]
|
Hi Shadow007! I am Galendalia and I have revived the WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia. I noticed that you signed up at some point to be a participant and as I am reviving this project, one of my tasks is to get the participant list in order. Would you please go to the Participants List and add your name and language(s) you speak? If you are already there and do not want to be, please move yourself to the inactive list at the bottom of the page. If you want to remain, please put remain next to your name (this way you are not moved). If I do not see anything from you by May 30, 2020, I will move you to the inactive participant list. It would also be great if you would be willing to join the task force for Pronunciation that would be awesome, as there are troublesome words we run into. Thank you for considering joining us. If you decide to leave, I will be sad |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia at 11:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
Updates to Spoken Wikipedia[edit]
Hello Shadow007! I hope this message finds you well and healthy! I am working this weekend on the Spoken Wikipedia project pages to get them in line with other projects. I just wanted to inform you in advance that some pages may be created. deleted, moved, or otherwise. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on my talk page.
Thanks,
Galendalia (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC) WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia Coordinator
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Charles III requested move discussion[edit]
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place[edit]
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)