User talk:Eric Pode lives/Archive 1

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Chawton
Having a bus timetable is both unencyclopedic and informal. It doesn't offer any value to a reader and is just cruft—I'm surprised you didn't think so. JAG UAR   23:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Links to countries
Hi Eric, thanks for your edits to Rottweiler. However, please don't add links to major geographical features like countries; this is considered overlinking. Graham 87 01:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The word “that”.
Hi Eric. On 17 July you edited Princess Beatrice of York to restore the word “that” in two places. Your edit summary says “far from redundant in grammatically correct British English (to which this article aspires.)” You didn’t identify the element of British English grammar you had in mind.

I have asked the question at Reference desk/Language. Dolphin ( t ) 21:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As the two responses at the reference desk have indicated, both forms of words are technically valid, so the inclusion or omission of "that" is neither a matter of "correctness" nor "redundancy", but more one of stylistic choice, euphony, and (on occasion) clarity and avoidance of ambiguity. (You will find some further relevant discussion at Complementizer.) My reference to British English – the only variety I can comment on with any degree of authority – was based on the suspicion that there might be regional variations in usage: I note from the article on That that the word "that" tends to be omitted in American and Canadian English in introducing a restrictive relative clause (which is not, however, the construction at issue here). Having said that, in both the sentences in dispute ("In an interview to mark her 18th birthday, Princess Beatrice said [that] she wanted to use her position to assist others through charity work"; "Blunt later claimed [that] the story had been fabricated"), it seems to me that omitting the word is somewhat casual usage in a formal written text. Eric Pode lives (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the hint about Complementizer. I wasn’t aware of its existence.
 * I have recently summarised my thoughts at the end of the thread on the Language Ref Desk.
 * At WP:MOS and it’s subordinate essays Wikipedia shows that conciseness is valued. For example, in WP:ATE the work of William Strunk Jr is quoted, focussing on the desirability that “every word tell” which I interpret to mean every word in a sentence must have a purpose, earn its place.
 * I found useful information at WP:BECONCISE.
 * You say “somewhat casual usage in a formal written text.” I have seen nothing in Wikipedia’s Manual of Style or subordinate essays to suggest Wikipedia disapproves of what you call somewhat casual usage. In contrast, much is available to Users to show Wikipedia values conciseness. Dolphin ( t ) 06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a response at the Ref desk: I see little point in having two parallel discussions. I have cited WP:FORMAL: if you want me to be more specific, I would say that omitting "that" tends towards the colloquial. However, this is essentially a question of taste, not of absolute rules, and we're clearly not going to agree on the issue. Eric Pode lives (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We may never agree on “the issue” but we have to agree that the required style of expression in Wikipedia is the style specified in the Style Manual. This specified style is clarified by various essays. Respecting the Style Manual is not optional. If you disagree with what is in the Style Manual, or you find it inadequate or insufficient, please use the appropriate Talk page to propose changes to the Manual.
 * I have looked closely at WP:FORMAL and I see it deprecates slang and jargon, but I don’t yet see anything that supports your suggestion that it calls for use of “that” in the situation we are discussing (ie what Antiquary identified as Old English.) Please clarify what you see in WP:FORMAL that you believe supports your position. Dolphin ( t ) 18:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using ... colloquialisms". I consider the omission of "that" to be an informal colloquialism in the same general category as contractions like "can't" or "isn't", and to be avoided in formal writing. You don't. I am not going to continue this discussion here. If you have more to say on the topic, please add it to the Reference desk thread. Eric Pode lives (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for help with block quote on Rachel Scott

Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 

Kingston Grammar School
The passage added on Kingston Grammar School is true, and is an unusual piece of history the school often jokes about now-a-days. 171.33.192.152 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

West Heath School / The New School at West Heath
I came across this while working on Nesta Pain, and it seems to me that there should be two separate articles, one on West Heath Girls' School and one on the current school, which was renamed "West Heath School" in 2015 (I found a ref in an OfSted report yesterday... ah yes here, page 11. I noticed that you edited the page today and have done so in the past so thought I'd run the idea past you first. What do you think? Two schools sharing name (now) and premises but completely different institutions: the history of the current special school seems to have completely no connection (apart from Al Fayed) with the previous school.  Pam  D  10:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And many of the references to the boarding school do call it "... Girls' ...". Pam  D  10:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Though the Old Girls site calls it "West Heath" and has a badge saying "West Heath School"... hmm, perhaps West Heath School (girls' school) and West Heath School (special school) or West Heath School (1865-1997) (or West Heath School (established 1865) to avoid hyphens) and West Heath School (established 1998)? With appropriate division of the umpteen redirects you've just rescued. Pam  D  10:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say that, although I added this article to my watchlist some years ago (for reasons I can't now remember), I have no direct knowledge of the school in either incarnation, and am not an expert. In principle, however, I agree with you: the two schools have no institutional connection, and there should really be two articles. I would suggest that the article on the present school should be named West Heath School, as that (as you've established) is the official name. I'm still unclear on the official name of the girls' school, so I hope we could clarify that: if it did use "... Girls' ...", that give us our title; if it didn't, then I'd be happy with any of your suggestions ("... (girls' school)", "... (1865-1997)", or "... (established 1865)"). Potential confusion can be avoided through the use of hatnotes on both articles, and, of course, a short paragraph added to both explaining the shared site and linking to the other article. Please feel free to take the initiative, and I will support you. Eric Pode lives (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The Warriors (film) edits
I noticed you less than friendly remark in your edit summary:  I find your categorization of my edit as wholesale deletionism rude, inaccurate and frankly, a pretty stupid way to foster collaborative editing. In point of fact, if the connection between Xenophon's book and the film were so very well-known, how is it that no one has mentioned it within the article. Oh, I know you said that you added 'refs to the book article' but, apart from a 'see also' mention, no ref is to be found. I know that sounded snarky, Eric_Pode; consider it a return on your lack of investment in AGF and CIVIL. I am willing to work with any editor who comes with RS explicitly stating the connection that you seem to think is quite well-known. If you are not prepared to do that, you don't get to complain when non- (or poorly-)cited info is added to the article. I chose to bring this behavioral faux pas to your usertalk page, as it doesn't belong in the article discussion. Be more polite and you will find that editing goes a lot more smoothly. The ball's in your court. I've initiated discussion in the article talk; feel free to contribute there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)