User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 4

Puns in Binomial Nomenclature
The way you have "use of puns" now (although ruinous of the 2nd paragraph) is grammatically correct&mdash;it would seem that how scientists come up with species names is a topic for an entire paragraph, within which use of puns is certainly appropriate. If it needs to be linked to latinization, that could be moved down as well. But I'm curious; wherever did you get this idea in the first place? Not that it has never happened, but it is so rare as to stretch anyone's imagination to look for an example (I assume you do not have one). It is about as minor a point as I could imagine to put in that article, although certainly would add some interest if we could give an example or two. It is certainly open to challange by anyone as something you made up, so an example would help prevent that. - Marshman 01:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) Ooops, I missed your note about the External link, I will check it out. Think about putting together a 2nd paragraph (as I had started) covering puns and other souyrces of names; maybe with "all latinized" in it - Marshman 01:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) pretty cool site. Shoulda looked there first! Lots of examples - Marshman 02:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wibble, West Midlands
X, West Midlands (ie. disambiguation by ceremonial county) is the standard form used for articles in the UK. There's no agreed policy on it, unfortunately, but it is what has been and is being used, so when I see something at a different location, I move it. BTW, thanks for fixing spellings! Warofdreams 13:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current Events
Thanks! much better wording of today's Current events ....and without loss of information! 209.135.35.83 20 Jul 2004

FHM
No, I commented on Categories for deletion/FHM110sexiest. -SV. In case you missed it:
 * Myself, Im inclined to think that MK, you must be on the FHM payroll, or else have no clue about what NPOV means. Perhaps the third option is more realistic: You spent a lot of time populating that list, innocent of the problems that it would raise, and like the rest of us, dont like to see your hard work get tossed. I sympathise; but back to the issue; Wikipedias prime directive is NPOV (followed by m:civility, and m:wikilove) and this includes devising a category scheme for POV based articles about matters of taste. Its beyond POV, its Double POV with a twist of corporate media influence on Wikipedia's culture. Pigs cannot fly, and neither does your reasoning for keeping this category. My sincere apologies if this all seemed like stepping on your toes. -Stevertigo 07:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Producer(s)
Moved to Talk:Producer (disambiguation)

Article of the week
I have turned your vote "against" wildlife as Article of the week into a "comment". AOTW uses approval voting (that is, we only count votes in support, not votes against).

I'm not sure what you mean by wildlife being "too short" - the aim of AOTW is to pick a stub or short article that can be turned into a featured-standard article by the end of one week, from widespread cooperative editing. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Misnunderstanding on my part, now corrected. Sorry. Andy Mabbett 10:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem - just thought I ought to check. Thanks for supporting it instead. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LOTR
I suggest that you stop reverting the LOTR article to add it to the Birmingham category. You have already reverted more than three times, which can get you blocked from editing if you persist. So far you are the only person arguing for including it and at least three against it. older &ne; wiser 22:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest you understand the guidelines before you cite them to support your threats. Andy Mabbett 22:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Would you care to clarify which guidelines you think I am misunderstaning. And for the record, if you would read my comment carefully, I did not in any way threaten you--I was informing you about the three revert rule. At no point did I say that I would block you, nor even seek to initiate such an action. older &ne; wiser 23:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current Events/ Beit Hanoun
I would like to ask you not to delete the NYT link regarding the 15 year child murdered today in Beit Hanoun. The AFP reports differs in at least three significant ways from the NYT and INN reports (as detailed in Talk:Current Events). Reuters did not carry the story. I do not know why.


 * So find another source, one which doesn't require subscription;, for instance. Andy Mabbett 21:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kipper legends
The origin of kippers is Old English. Old English dates back a thousand years or more. This is established by the 1911 Encylopedia Brittanica entry for kipper (see google, the "k" volume has not been made avilable yet to Wikipedia). Since kipper is pre-historic and there is no definitive origin story, I would hazzard a guess there is more than one kipper legend in the world, and that they would all be very local in flavour, perhaps helping the merchant who created the story.

The main body of the kipper article should not be clutterd up with all these local legend refrences.. it is confusing and inaccurate. Scholaraly research shows that "kipper" has been around for a long time dateing back a thousand years or more. It should either be clearly marked as "false", or it should be moved to a seperate "legends" article. As it stands, the "claimed legend" is not clearly defined as being outright wrong, and is confusing.


 * So mark it as false, and say why! Andy Mabbett 20:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * ok I'll try to make it work so it makes sense in the main article Stbalbach

Category reverts
Why did you revert my edits regarding Category:Birmingham, England? --Conti|&#9993; 10:26, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Because each of the pages concerned has something to do with Birmingham. Why did you remove them in the first place? Andy Mabbett 16:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Because articles don't belong to a category when they have something to do with the category, they belong to a category when there is some significant connection between the article and the category. If the category of "Birmingham, England" would belong to The Legend of Sleepy Hollow for example, then the categories of "Tarry Town", "Sleepy Hollow, New York", "Connecticut", "American Revolutionary War", "Disney", "ghosts", "1949", "1999" and many others could be put in there too, making about 10 categories for such a small article.. and that's what I mean with overcategorization. --Conti|&#9993; 17:07, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Each of the pages concerned has something significant to do with Birmingham. . Andy Mabbett 17:09, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What is so significant that a band was formed or that a book was written there? I'd agree that the category belongs to an article when for example a band would be only known in the area around Birmingham, but internationally acclaimed bands and books do not need this category in my opinion. --Conti|&#9993; 17:14, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Could you either stop reverting me or stop ignoring my key arguments ("what's so significant about a book being written in Birmingham?" for example) about this topic and give some about it youself? --Conti|&#9993; 18:41, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you say what /isn't/ significant about the same? Andy Mabbett 19:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter where the book was written, there is, as far as I know, no connection to Birmingham in Sleepy Hollow and the author didn't said that birmingham played a big role while writing this book.. (correct me if I'm wrong), so I don't see much significance at all. --Conti|&#9993; 19:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Current Events
Why did you undo all of my edits to the Current Events page? You changed a link to United States to USA, which only redirects to United States. You changed a link to The Village (film) back to The Village, which is a disambiguation page. You reverted copy and paste wording from the original sites, which is pretty much copyright violating. I was THIS CLOSE to just reverting your changes, but I'll be polite and will re-edit the damn thing. RickK 21:27, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why did you undo all of my edits to the Current Events page? - I didn't. HTH. Andy Mabbett 11:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This diff says you did. RickK 20:47, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Like hell it does. Andy Mabbett 20:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Care to explain just what it shows? It shows that you changed United States to USA.  It shows that you changed The Village (film) to The Village.  It shows that you reverted copy and paste wording I had modified.  If it doesn't show that, what does it show? RickK 21:19, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Next time, I'll just revert you and not even try to work it out. RickK 21:45, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Article needs rename
Hello, the article kipper (jousting) needs to be renamed. Kippers are not specific to jousting. They are specific to Medieval Tournaments. Kippers were around before jousting, they are part of a tournament, tournaments did not always have jousting but they always had kippers. The article should be called kipper (medieval tournament) .. since you renamed it, and since I don't know how, I'm asking for your help to rename the article. Either to do it or tell me how. Thank You. Stbalbach 06:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out.Stbalbach

Accessibility
You mentioned accessibility issues with 2004 Atlantic hurricane season; do you have the same concerns with the lower table on American Idol? Do you know of a way to put alt text into tables? --Golbez 00:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fred Barnes
In response to your question on the Fred Barnes talk page. There isn't a problem with copywrite since I wrote the bio and placed it on the site. Thanks, --Air luigi 14:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Frank to describe Rocky Horror
Yes, that's pretty much the same definition of "frank" that I find very vaguely implies accurate. It's probably largely contextual; people usually use it to mean honest or no-nonsense (neither apply to Rocky's depiction of anything). Looking looking at the definition you gave, I find it doesn't apply very well. "Disconcerting" is fine, but "direct", "unsubtle", "without evasion"? When the depiction is so ludicrous and convoluted, it doesn't quite sit with me that any of these are the right words to use.

Arts categories
Hi,

I noticed that you have recently been active in categorising in the visual arts. Can I also encourage you to join the categorisation discussion at Category talk:Art -- Solipsist 21:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Andy. I don't want another battle on artist categories. You might also want to check the additional guidelines in Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories added by Snowspinner.
 * I've tried to engage you in the wider discussion - what is your position? -- Solipsist 09:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NYT
Andy, I understand your desire to remove NYT links. I also understand your desire to remove stories without links. When an NYT link is the only link and it is removed another person might remove the story because it has no link. This results in Wikipedia having less information rather than more. SO please, when there is only an NYT link. Find another or let it remain. Lance6Wins 19:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No, thanks. Andy Mabbett 19:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

please see talk current events

I have not seen ANY OTHER LINK to the story. Does that address the above consideration? Lance6Wins 19:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The discussion above seems to be that no one likes registration only sites, but that some are too important to ignore...would that be a valid reading of Viajero(!), David Gerard and others at the top of this page? Andy, might you be in the minority on this one from the above discussion? Lance6Wins 19:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What you have failed to see does not address any consideration. Andy Mabbett 20:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)