User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 63

=February 2012=

Barnstar comment
Don't delete this! -


 * Sankyu beddy mush! Hardly necessary for me just behaving properly. Heh.  But I appreciate it anyway. I left you a note at your page about that Guidance rename idea. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shou ist werie velcum. I think the 'Guidance' name and the way you simplified it into a short statement is very good! And people should give out more barnstars. They are very merited and it isn't as if they cost us anything.-- Djathink imacowboy  10:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Article titles capitalization
What's going on at article titles by some of these people is sickening. I have been very involved in the past. I started writing a long post in opposition to the pre-disambiguation nonsense and realized doing so would just get me drawn into what will be an intractable dispute while I'm in the middle of a FAC and took it off my watchlist a few weeks ago (though I have not been following though I get the picture that born2cycle is being strung up for how he's gone about his opposition, but of course he's the voice of reason in the dispute).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, though I think bigger issues are going on, like Christian viewpoint-pushers insisting on capitalizing "virgin birth" even when it's wrong to do so, etc.  Lots of people are monkeying with capitalization in article titles and using that to ungrammatically capitalize the crap out of everything in the prose.  I almost think this is some secret German plot to get back at the US and UK for kicking Deustche butt in two world wars. >;-)  At the ArbCom, I basically felt free to add the "my Mexican Jay was eaten by my Domestic Cat, so I got a Guinea Pig and a Horse instead" issue into the wikilawyerly fray. I was very proud of the fact that I'd never been an ArbCom party on any side, so if I'm being forced to, even though uninvolved, I'm going to make it worth the personal hassle and the burning of one of my favorite wikicap feathers. Anyway, I agree that "pre-disambiguation" is just stupid. I revert it with a move every time I encounter it (when I can; not having the mop disallows me to do a lot of moves because of edited redirects). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence with species in title case is a very effective model to drive home the point. They will argue that it's irrelevant because titles are different than running text. It's not just predimambiguation but this idea of generic/vague titles and the terrible conflation going on there when speaking about that issue between descriptive titles and named things. Everything is generic/vague if you don't already know it. If you had never heard of Pink Floyd and I asked you what it was what would you think? A type of sea coral? Very few named things can be recognized unless you are already familiar with them. So they turn to more obscure things that are just as much named things as Pink Floyd but few people know them on sight and say in effect "see, we can't recognize it so it should have a descriptive name even though it has an actual title, so that we can recognize it from its title alone."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The "titles are different" thing is a vacuous argument, since we already have naming conventions that call for sentence case (same goes for headings), and a cadre of people trying to change that are going to meet great wall of resistance. So, on WP, titles simply different than running text. I actually find both of these instances of sentence case weird, since virtually all other publications use title case for the content of article titles and section titles within them (a lot of science journals seem to be an exception, with article titles like "The flux capacity of unobtanium resistors"), but I gave up fighting about it here in 2005 or so, and as if by magic it suddenly didn't bothered me any longer. Same thing happened to the people who fought like hell to keep date linking. After a bit, they just forgot about it and moved on. I think the same thing will eventually happen with The Rampant Capitalizers. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The tools
I thought about going for RfA again, so I can do things like maintain my own darned templates that people keep full-protecting, but this new debate would probably just get every member of WP:BIRDS to vote against me out of spite. I was going to try again last year, but basically every time I get ready, something controversial pops up that I'm not willing to ignore. The process is so politicized that you basically can't become an admin any longer unless you do nothing whatsoever other than write articles but run away from every content dispute, and do gnomish, uncontroversial "admin trainee" stuff like clerking on process pages. I'm a big fan of the proposal to make "non-lethal" admin tools available to trusted users. I don't need the ability to block people for a month or permprotect pages in order to fulfill an editprotected or a requested move, or fix a bug in a template, or temporarily protect an article being editwarred. I don't even the power to block people. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding edited redirects barring moves, you can use db-move to (hopefully) get the same result though obviously it's a hassle you could do without. Breaking up the tools has been suggested numerous times and every time that I've seen it has met with significant opposition such that it's made it onto the list of perennial proposals. Regarding becoming an admin, I'm not sure you want to put yourself through that gauntlet again. I don't think you would succeed. Sorry if that comes off as harsh but I think you know that because you are emphatic in discussions, do not mince words and are persistent, you have made many if not enemies, then detractors—the fact that those traits have fuck all to do with whether you would abuse the tools notwithstanding.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, sure I can use db-move; I do so all the time. And I use editprotected, and so on. My point is, . I've been on this system for six and a half years, never been blocked, never been ArbCom'd, never been personal-RfC'd, and I don't even recall being ANI'd (if I was, it was probably years ago by Slimvirgin or Jossi during the WP:ATT fiasco; I was one of the leading opponents of that abomination and their camp were always trying to brand me with WP:DE, and no one bought it). My first RfA was sabotaged by a sockpuppet, and my second bombed because I notified my biggest detractors of the past, like Jossi, and got accused of canvassing (it was anti-canvassing, really - I was inviting people with severe criticisms of me to make them again if they felt it necessary).  Few ever become admins after failing two RfAs.  The system is really missing out by not having me as an admin, because very, very often I avoid fixing things that need to be fixed here and go do something else like pet the cat or watch a movie or shoot some pool, because the hassle of filing a db-move and waiting 7 hours for someone to get around to it and not actually bother to do the move, leaving me to clean up after it, is just too much. Or whatever other pain in the butt is forced on me, by too many useful tools being only available to those with "life or death" powers of banning and article nuking.  It's just paranoid and it's badly hurting the entire project.  It's one of the many reasons great editors are leaving (out of "I'm locked in a playpen like some child" frustration) and good admins are leaving (bogged down in routine maintenance crap that any user with, say, 6 months, 1000 edits and no blocks should be able to do, instead of being able to focus on important and sensitive admin work that requires a much greater level of trust).


 * I've seen (and supported) a more recent proposal to "trial-balloon" the making of certain admin tools available to non-admins, and it seems to have more traction that previous proposals, though I have not followed it in a month or so, so maybe it's already died. I don't even remember what page it's on.


 * Anyway, I haven't tried a third WP:RFA for a reason, and it's the one you pegged. I seriously thought about it in December, since it had been about 2 years, and I had actually been studiously avoiding major conflicts for many months in preparation for it, but then various other issues popped up and I got into them, so that's that.  I'll see how I feel in another 6 months or year.  I actually did take the criticisms seriously and have become vastly more civil and less prone to argument in the last 2 years, so I don't think I have  chance, just no chance right now because of this capitalization brouhaha. If some basic admin tools finally become available to trusted non-admins, I'd never bother, because I have zero desire for "power" over other users, I'm just constantly hemmed in on practical wikiwork by excessive restrictions. I can bide a lot of time, and have confidence that the system will change eventually. When Jimmy Wales laments in interviews in external publications about the crisis of editors and admins quitting faster than they can be replaced, that's a sign. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a great example: Template talk:Quote. I can fix in probably 3 hours. I've already filed two editprotected requests to fix a couple of them, but now I'm pissed off, so I'm going to go read a book instead of working on it further, since they'll probably be ignored for a week, and then denied because I didn't follow some anal test cases procedure that isn't needed for dirt-simple fixes. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel your frustration and knowing and working with you I also know you wouldn't abuse the tools but the process at FAC is a shallow examination. Well, if you want to take you frustration out on a problem, maybe you can head over to the glossary and fix footnote eleven? Not sure what's going on, but it's from the WPBA reference which I think you added on December 25.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed! It was a stray   that kept it from ever finding the  .  Took a while to figure the one out. (Had to progressively reduce the text in a sandbox down to nothing but the definition with the broken ref and the refs section and then start paring the latter down until I finally noticed that "WPBSA 2011" was in there twice, once with the wrong markup.) — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Usually ref issues are obvious but I had taken a quick look at the code and scratched me head. By the way, the glossary's traffic has increased. It gets over 1,000 hits a day.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely no waste of time then! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lower-casing
Every time I read one of your rants I am motivated to go move some articles to lowercase. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do, but not in birds, plants or winged insects articles, or some people will flip out; there needs to be a clear site-wide consensus on this, a la the de-linking of dates, and not putting spoiler warnings, and other controversial stuff that took years to resolve, got resolved, and suddenly wasn't controversial any more because the entrenched opponents finalize realized WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. In the interim, however, a zillion articles on great cats, squids, antelopes, spiders, etc., etc. have Stoopid Capitalization in them, and MOS has been clearly saying not to do that for at least 4 years now, so any lower-casing cleanup help there is a Good Thing.  I'd avoid messing with capitalization of names of  like Maine Coon, and American Quarterhorse and German Shepherd; that's another, less raging, debate, and one that actually has some quite different arguments.  Species, types, landraces, groups of breeds, varieties, subspecies, clades and anything else not recognized by a major fancier/breeder organization as an official, formal, registered breed is fair game for lower-casing though. I just recently did this at Przewalski's horse and St. John's water dog, and no one's head asplode. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking forward to the site-wide debate. I'm pretty much just doing non-avian tetrapod species articles for now, no breeds or birds. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 04:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If people scream at you, lemme know. >;-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bande à part vs Band of Outsiders
In light of your previous participation in titling issues, the discussion at Talk:Bande à part (film) may be of interest.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar Point
Well, thank you. I may cite that in making the point for ArbCom. JCScaliger (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that JCScaliger was shown to be a sockpuppet of Pmanderson. Doesn't mean what he said wasn't spot-on. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some comments

 * My comment was more directed at you than the process. I'm sick to death of this fight, and I haven't taken any stand against your proposal (at least on the proposal page). I was merely addressing the point about attacks. Unbraiding Kim about attacks and percieved attacks while engaging in attacks, well, you get my point. If you feel you weren't attacking, well, perhaps the fight has just gone on too long.
 * I have never supported rampant capitalisation. Where I have spoken up for capitalisation in the past outside birds was more in the spirit of allowing wikiprojects and groups of editors maximum autonomy in working in the subjects they know best. It used to be the case that the Mammal people had their own opinions and had gone the same route as we had, but were less numerous and less able to fend off the grammar peeps when they noticed and came angrily rampaging in. The mammal people fought for a while but lost. A lot of the capitalisation you object to is actually just fossils of a time before the grammer people noticed the animal people were plowing their own furrow.
 * There has been a trend towards greater uniformity and conformity in the years I have been here, and with it a corresponding amount of rule creep. Policies are decided (or more commonly amended) on pages and then suddenly appear to ambush editors. Yes, the discussions are open, but Wikipedia is so vast that it is impossible to keep up. And me, I prefer the lighter touch and decentralised attitudes towards governance. If a bunch of people are working towards improving a set of articles, leave them the hell alone and let them do that. I gather this is a philosophical difference in our views, but that is where I come from. I resent being told what to do by people who care little about the effect it will have on my work or my motivation. That is also why I have supported the mammal people in the past, and why I've supported the flora wikiproject in their choice to use binomials over common names. The editors who wok in those fields know their subject best and leave them be.
 * If, as you say,  A process we're ensuring leaves your project alone if you'll just let it., then that is great. I guess we all suspect its the thin edge of a wedge to lay the groundwork on forcing us to move in the future. We'd all rather work on the stuff we do best rather than fight another fight about this. If you're certain that this will be enough to leave us the hell alone, I'll support it. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some other thoughts - You probably don't notice it, but it's a massive problem all over Wikipedia, and it greatly hurts our credibility - of all the problems wikipedia has, a lack of conformity of matters of style is possibly the least damaging to our credibility. I can't speak for the whole of wikipedia, but in the bird project we have massive amounts of un or poorly sources articles, articles with rampant point of view fights, flat out lies here and there that we've undoubtably missed (we once has a guy make up dozens of species of extinct Hawaiian bird that we didn't notice until they turned up at AFD), and the fact that avian taxonomy changes so quickly we can't keep up and our family, genus and species articles don't match up. Oh, and we're still trying to get all our names to match the IOC. Without adopting their taxonomy (I had a famous bird writer roll his eyes at me a few weeks ago when I told him that gem). So, while I don't think it is a problem anyway, I really don't think it is a problem compared to the million we already have.
 * Finally, and this amuses me but perhaps not you, I never gave capitalisation of names a moment's though until I joined Wikipedia. I assume I must have encountered both styles beforehand, but I never adopted the current style until I started writing about birds on a daily basis here. I dimly recall thinking it was novel, but I accepted it and in time found it preferable. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I do appreciate it. It's nice to inject one-on-one human contact into what often feels like parliamentary debate across a room full of shouting people.
 * I'm not upset at Kim for perceived attacks like calling me and everyone else who disagrees with her (him? the name can be either gender) ignorant and suggesting that their opinions are worthless. I have a thicker skin that that. I just note it as evidentiary of an insular "private club" pattern, that you also evince frequently. That said, yes, I realize that I can be a forceful debate opponent. I am a logician by nature, from toenails to hair-tips. I detest fallacious arguments with a passion, and rarely hesitate to point them out. I consider it a duty, especially in policy discussions. I'm also aware that it ticks people off sometimes.  One thing I learned from my dad very early was "The surest way to fail is to try to please everyone."  I have picked a path, and that is (when it comes to WP) doing what is rationally best for the encyclopedia, even when it tweaks my own pet peeves, and even if it greatly upsets some people whose interests are more divided. I don't mean, just less focused.  Yours, for instance, are heavily slanted toward the interests of birders and their  Wikipedia. I don't care even 0.0001% more about their experience than the experience here of pool players (I am one) or Azerbaijani goat farmers or race car drivers.  Anyway, to get back to your criticism: Yes, I know I can be abrasive. I am very, very careful not to attack people; I may relentlessly deconstruct flaws in their arguments, point out fallacies, show how I believe their behaviors violate policies, even suggest that certain patterns or incidents are disruptive, but I'm addressing ideas and actions, not personalities or souls.  I'm sure you and Kim are both wonderful people. I just see holes in the arguments you've advanced on this topic.  And yes, sometimes this issue has made me angry, and I am feeling the fight has gone on too long. I've said as much to you directly and at WT:MOS.  I mean, I could have filed an ArbCom case, or a big RfC or whatever. Instead I've tried to find a way to let you have your cake, without bending MOS over a barrel in the process, and while fixing the rampant caps problem.  I have no doubt that the "WTF is this capitalized birds stuff?!?" flamewars will erupt again. Seven years of fighting strongly suggest it, but a respite would be nice. Also, I feel personally responsible (mostly - DarkFrog didn't help) for Kim almost quitting the project. I'm not blind to the fact that this debate can become emotional to different people differently, and that I personally can have a strong effect on someone positively or in this case negatively. I may be a curmudgeon but I try not to to be a WP:DICK, and do have some empathy. I should probably tell Kim some of this, but I'm not sure a post from me would be welcome on her/his talk page. That said, I have a firm belief in the "you own your own emotions" principle. I can be more polite or whatever, but I have no control over the fact that some people are temperamentally unsuited to engage in debate or compromise.
 * When I'm critical of past behaviors of WP:BIRDS I'm not always talking about you. :-) Anyway, WP has changed quite a bit over time.  If I bring up something like "WP:BIRDS clearly advanced a pro-caps position at WT:TOL" I'm not saying "Die, evil scumsuckers!" I'm saying "part of this problem of rampant caps all over the place is WP:BIRDS's responsibility/fault, and it behooves you to help find a solution instead of fighting like rabid wolves every time capitalization and animals is mentioned in the same discussion." Someone(s) from WP:BIRDS derails the discussion every single time it arises, even when you're not the subject or "target" as you guy put it. In this case, the proposal is actually in your favor, yet some of you, Kim especially, are flaming it to death anyway. Re: "allowing wikiprojects and groups of editors maximum autonomy" – that was a nifty experiment. It failed. ArbCom shot it down several times, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy was written to put an end to it, because it led to factionalism, inconsistency and fighting, instead of open collaboration and mutual expectations. I've read lots and lots and lots of this stuff, and I do not see any evidence that WP:MAMMALS, WP:CETACEANS, etc. gave up capitalization in fear of "grammar warriors". They had mostly quiet internal discussions and came to their own conclusions that doing what generalist publications do was what made sense for the encyclopedia.  WP:FISH did this in face of one of the larger fish taxonomy organizations going the IOC route (see bottom of my archive page about the debate; I link to publication of the announcement). WP:CETACEANS did something similar.  WP:MAMMALS didn't "give up", they came to an internal conclusion that the most authoritative org in their sphere (I forget the acronym right off hand) actually  the style, so they should too (i.e. they used your logic, it just happened to have opposite facts to which to apply that logic; so they didn't give up at all).  In other words, I think you may be projecting a bit. As in, WP:BIRDS has felt put upon, so surely every other project who once used or thought about using caps must have felt attacked, too. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Even in plants, where at least in certain fields the journals prefer caps, and many of the articles here are cap'd, just 'cuz someone did it that way, no one has taken the sort of trench warfare position that your project has. You speak clearly in terms of "us" vs. "them" all the time, and no one else is doing that, not even in lepidoptery or other areas where capitalization is something of a convention in specialist lit. Basically, no one else cares. What's more, the evidence – namely that you and only a handful of other editors ever speak up about this from your project – strongly suggests that most WP:BIRDS editors DGAF about this; they're here to write articles. I've also seen, and have diffs, of members of that project questioning/criticizing the practice as inappropriate here. And, the issue for me of you and others from WP:BIRDS "helping" push the caps idea or "supporting" it when it came up here and there in other projects, is diffs from the same time period at WT:BIRDS of you and others insisting that you were only promoting the idea for orn. articles. I'm not saying "you're a big fat liar!", but at very least your actions did not appear to agree with the assurances you were giving.  But, hell, the same can probably be said of me right now. I've not suddenly stopped being an opponent of bird caps. I'm asking you to take on faith the idea that  I'm not gunning for that issue, I'm trying to do something else entirely, and actually compromising a bit in your direction in order to get closer to that more important goal. I'm not promising I'll never criticize bird caps again.
 * "the grammar warriors when they noticed and came angrily rampaging in": A superb example of what I mean about us vs. them attitude. If editors from all walks of life and all sorts of areas of interest are objecting to this, constantly, for seven years straight, it's a very,, strong indication that the majority of our readership are bewildered, irritated, disgusted or otherwise put off by it, and that insisting on it because it suits your professional or avocational preferences is a terrible mistake.
 * Uniformity, conformity and rule creep vs. decentralized governance: Yes, this is a natural and generally unavoidable part of the process of organizational growth. There are entire volumes on the social science of this. Google for phrases like "stages of organizational development" and so on. Resiting it is kind of futile. But I do, too, in my own ways (see my contribs log today for me ripping WT:HRT a new one about their anal over-protection of every template that has anything to with a template that has anything to do with an actual high-risk template, making it impossible for non-admins to even finish what they were doing on templates they were working on. The difference is process for its own sake isn't always what's happening. It is not irrational for editors of one frame of mind to want maximum uniformity of grammar/style site-wide, for a seamless reader experience. It's also not irrational for editors of another frame of mind to want to see the practices of their profession accurately reflected. The devil is in the details of the interaction of these two frames of reference.
 * Editors working to improve, leave them alone: Sure, but you're taking it too personally. Lower-casing bird names has no effect on your article output except that in the few cases like  Mexican jay vs. Mexican jays generally, one has to write sentences with a bit more care. Oh well. No one's going to keel over and die. If it has a big effect on your motivation, consider re-prioritizing. Or just WP:IAR and do as thou wilt, realizing that sometimes people will revert you. C'est la vie. There are loads of things I could get bent out of shape about, but I've had to let them go.  It used to drive to me hairpulling distraction SeaMonkey wasn't merged with Brine shrimp, or that we use sentence case in headings instead of title case, or that we bottom post threads, not just entries in threads, on talk page.  Just had to let them go, or I would've quit.
 * Something that never seems to sink in at your project is that everyone else on the system "resents being told what to do" by snooty academics and obsessive hobbyists with weird grammar/style ideas that contradict every reliable source.  That, right there, is why you meet so much continual resistance.  If WP:STARWARS or WP:NASCAR came around and told everyone they had to capitalize misc. nouns like "Starship" and "Planet" or "Tires" and "Bumper" we'd all laugh in their faces. Your project has been treated with an astonishing amount of deference. Mostly, I think, because of outright tendentiousness. You (the project; I don't mean you personally) simply wear down the resistance until the critics go away, scathed and bleeding, and find something to do that doesn't make them want to jump off a tall building rather than deal with you guys again. The reason you're sick of me in particular is I don't scare that easily and have debatory hide like a dragon.
 * "I guess we all suspect its the thin edge of a wedge to lay the groundwork on forcing us to move in the future": Well, sure, that's a natural suspicion, but this is a wiki. There's no secret bomb I can plant under your WikiProjectCar. The wedge you fear was driven in back in 2008, when MOS adopted a very clear "lower case for common names" standard (it was actually already essentially adopted but not codified, I recently learned, at VPP the year before that; I haven't added that to the archive yet).  I can't promise I'll never tap that wedge to drive it deeper, but it is already there and what I'm doing at MOS right now  (see the box with "My actually preferred version"), and everything to do with firewalling your project so that the caps "standard" stops leaking out of it all over the place, at the expense of having to compromise in your favor.  In order to do that without a shitstorm, MOS kinda just has to let you have your way, but it can't do that in a way that opens the door to every project on the system demanding an exception for every random whim. That's why it has to say something like "it remains controversial on Wikipedia" or "it doesn't have site-wide consensus" (both of which are proven true.) MOS  endorse what you're doing. It would open a Pandora's box, and would violate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy anyway. Furthermore, it would be a gross violation of MOS's purpose and scope: MOS is not ArbCom; it is not MOS's job to declare the raging, 7-year debate over and state what the outcome is. That debate is very much still ongoing.  Every single point in the proposal already has clear consensus, including the "birds exception" being notable controversial. It's just a matter of wording.
 * It won't "be enough to leave you alone". It'll be enough for personally to not pick a bird caps fight any time soon, unless one is forced on me (one is kinda being forced on me right now by being dragged against my will into an ArbCom case about capitalization bitchfests, in which I'm presenting the evidence I have, because I have it, but I've demanded to be released as a party, because I wasn't actually involved in the case). But I think I'm the least of your worries. DarkFrog and others have far stronger feelings than I do and more willingness to pursue those arguments. I pop up once a year or so and make some noise. Others are  to get rid of your caps practice.  I have been in the past, but I'm way more concerned about Mountain Goat and Eastern Newt than Mexican Jay. Not because I don't think birds matter, but because you at least have some kind of rationale for what you are doing. There's no rationale at all for "Grizzly Bear", and it's leaking even farther. I'm increasingly seeing things like "Carrom Board" and "Bowling Ball" and so on. This wasn't happening much 4 years ago. It's everywhere now.  Anyway, for my part, I'm tired and want to work on the Manx (cat) article or something. If one of the proposed wording bits were installed in MOS I'd probably be mollified indefinitely, though if someone opened an RfC against bird caps, I'd have to support lower case.  I was originally going to do this myself, way back when, but have far bigger fish to fry, and have lost the taste for "the chase". I've also just recently radically shifted away from opposition to capitalization of recognized formal breeds of animals and cultivars of plants (for reasons that don't relate much to cap'ing common names of species), and I once felt very strongly against that, so who knows. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm not suggesting capitalization of bird names, consistently throughout articles, and with a rationale behind it (even one I disagree with, but one that is not crazy or stupid, just differently motivated than I am and than MOS is), is among WP's biggest problems. But one of WP's biggest PR/public perception/reader experience issues is the appearance of professional vs. "I'm 10 and gots a compooter" writing.  A major hallmark of ignorant-kid writing is overcapitalization, and it is running rampant, worsening rather than improving. (Because – the big point – MOS has been unclear, naming conventions have been wishy-washy, guidelines contradict each other, etc.). No one is going to trust a source that capitalizes things like "Lions" and "Horse".  It look's frakkin' retarded.  This is not an idle concern, and has been raised by many other editors (and external readers) long before I made any noise about it.  It's actually a key point in the anti-cap piece in The Auk going back 30-odd years now.  I certainly agree that the poor sourcing is a more serious problem, but it's one that the reader doesn't see instantly like bad grammar.  "First impressions matter." — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is quite a reply and I am way too drunk now (It is a long weekend in New Zealand, sorry!) to deal with all of it. I will deal with some of the points (I agree with you on a number of issues, if with different levels of emphasis I should note), but quickly, Kim is female, WP:Local Consensus is exactly one of those rule creeps that snuck up on me and I was unaware of (I'll leave it to you assess how that makes me look) and I almost immediately retracted the grammer warriors and replaced it with grammer peeps, pretty much for the reasons you gave. Oh, and that we are arguing about a slightly narrower point than you imagine. I agree that common nouns are not in caps. Really, I do. It is just that as a biologist I think of species as not being common nouns. One analogy I can think of is human. Human is generally not treated as a common noun (human rights, for example), but in sci-fi would you treat Klingon, Shi-ar or Martian, so why not Human? I realise this isn't an argument you haven't seen before, but it would be nice if you didn't strawman our position as wanting a widespread adoption of caps for nouns, and instead accept that we are looking at biological concepts in a new way. Biologists have long treated the binomial in a way that still seems to vex some. You have written about writing in a manner that follows popular texts as opposed to more specialist texts. And every time I wince, recalling the times I have seen esteemed sources like the Times of London or the BBC render binomials in ordinary text instead of italics, or getting the caps wrong (I'm sure I don't need to tell you but caps for genus, species un). I don't think you realise how much pain that causes. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  07:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right; none of that's a big shock to me, other than you think I honestly believe that you want to see caps spread around for nouns in general. That would be a straw man certainly. I don't think that. The issue is that the birds practice  guideline chaos, especially the bovine dung at WP:FNAME, has led directly to caps all over the place, but inconsistently, which in turn has led to a zillion editors at every other project saying "Hmm... if bird lit capitalizes birds, and [x] lit capitalizes [x]s, and both types of article get caps here, too, that means,, since my videogaming manuals capitalize Controller and Console and Game, and my metallurgy textbooks capitalize Steel and Arc Welder and Nail, I should capitalize all that too!" Remember that the specialist publications in innumerable fields, from marketing to fandom to physics, capitalize Important Things having to do with that field in publications for members of that fields to "bignote" what they do and care about.  I realize that WP:BIRDS has an argument (I don't personally buy it) that their case is different because IOC or whoever have published an "official" list of bird common names, that this makes the case special and different, even that it makes them proper nouns.  That argument's been hashed over again and again, with no clear resolution.  But virtually no one else even has an argument like that available. They're capitalizing anyway, often, and it's because of the guideline mess.  I want to stop that, and leave the birds issue for later resolution, which could take another 7 years, basically.  Anyway, the crux of  debate is that, yes, I and most other editors do think about writing from the viewpoint of generalist works ("popular" doesn't necessarily come into play) and guides, not specialist ones. MOS is happy to, even insistent on, doing what specialist ones do  when doing so would directly conflict with general grammar rules. This is why MOS recommends (and so do Chicago Manual of Style, Hart's Rules theNew York Times style guide, the Guidarian style guide, and every other style guide I've ever seen, proper Genus species'' style); that a few newspapers mess that up sometimes doesn't mean there's not a style guide they should have been following.  The caps thing violates all these style guides, though (unless you buy the argument that bird common names are proper nouns, which very few do, even in WP:BIRDS). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs.

My tuppenceworth
I saw your comments on Sabine's Sunbird's page. I haven't come across you before today, but I suggest that you read this and this. Sabine's, Casliber and MeegsC have contributed far more to this project to this project that the wikilawyers and endashers (that's not aimed at you, just a generalisation since I haven't checked your contributions), and I would be reluctant to see them walk, although I'd probably join them. I'm sick of this constant sniping at VOLUNTEERS who are doing a great job. If you want us all to conform to every last dotted i and crossed t (I'm sure there's an MoS error there - Oh no), then please pay us.

I'd like to see this go the the way of the absolutely serious proposal when I started contributing that everything should be in American English, rather than having inconsistent spelling from article to article. If you are sick of caps, perhaps you might want to give that one another run around the block?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm aware the above looks a bit negative, so how about this as a constructive and much more important MoS suggestion. There are about a million articles on en-wiki with no references at all. It would improve the credibility of Wikpedia no end if all articles remaining completely unreferenced for more than a given time (a year? three months?) were summarily deleted. that seems more important to me than harassing unpaid volunteers with nit-picking "rules"  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a thick skin; no worries. Sabine and I are actually having a plenty civil and good-faith-assumptive discussion (on her  his page and mine, immediately above). It's very long-winded, but it's not as angsty as it might look to other parties. I have no doubt that you're right that the  members of WP:BIRDS have made more and content-wise more useful contribs than the  pundit at WP:MOS, least on a per-capita basis, but it's not a fair comparison (apples and oranges), assumes that only mainspace contributions count, and a dangerous generalization (I have over 70,000 contribs, for example, over 25,000 in mainspace, and before you think "all the rest are on policy pages", most of them are in template space and talk spaces).  It wouldn't be a good argument anyway. "I've built more and bigger houses than you" doesn't means "the house you built sucks". The oppose may be true.  The American English thing: Apples and oranges again. This is really a WP:COMMONALITY, not WP:ENGVAR matter: There is no English dialect on earth in which it is grammatical to capitalize the common names of species or capitalize other non-proper-names.  (NB: Even as an American, I'd oppose that old proposal if it came back; if anything it should go the other way, since American English is split off/variant/whatever of, necessarily, English English.)  I agree with you on article nuking, and have supported such proposals in the past.  In the longer discussions with Sabine this issue also came up; the short version of the response is that you have to dig into an article to find out it is unsourced; Ungrammatical Correction Just Slaps You in the Face Instantly; and "first impressions count".  All that said, please reali[z|s]e that the current debate at MOS, as much as people have re-argued bird points in it, is about firewalling WP:BIRDS and getting everyone else to stop capitalizing things like Mountain Lion, Domestic Cat, Eastern Newt, etc. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, Sabine's Sunbird is a he, Sabine as in Joseph Sabine or Sabine Baring-Gould rather than the girl's name. Just to reiterate, we are all volunteers, not press-ganged. There is room for some variety &mdash; even at WP:FA you can use any referencing style, spelling convention or layout you like as long as it's consistent. In the project we have consistency across the whole project, every article has at least one reference etc.  I think many of the most active contributors (mainly non-Americans) see this as the thin end of the wedge for the eventual imposition of a one-size-fits-all diktat &mdash; obey or walk. Obviously the AE thing wasn't serious, but a better argument for BE is that I suspect that it's used my more people (don't forget all the millions of fluent speakers in the Indian subcontinent, Africa and much of northwest Europe).   Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gender clarification; I thought Kimvdb was a male (because of debate style, and there being plenty of men named Kim, especially outside the US). The thin edge of the wedge you fear was already driven in, in 2008, when MOS adopted a very clear "don't capitalize" default (actually, in 2007, when a majority clearly supported it at WP:VPP).  The changes being proposed simply firewall WP:BIRDS from so much direct assault, and way more importantly (to everyone but birds editors, I guess) helps make it clear that people need to stop capitalizing things like Domestic Cat and Mountain Elm and Red-tailed Deer and Neon Tetra. There couldn't be an obey-or-walk diktat because WP:IAR is policy. Another way of looking at it: I detest the birds capitalization practice, with a steaming passion, but at least you have some kind of rationale for it. There is no rationale at all for capitalizing Lion or Pacific Giant Salamander, yet it is happening all over the place.  I'm compromising, a lot, and leading a charge against the rampant capitalization of willy-nilly species, at the cost of making it far more difficult for me or anyone else to ever get rid of bird capitalization, by semi-enshrining it MOS, because what you're doing can be compartmentalized and is far less of a problem than Domestic Cat and Saguaro Cactus all over the place.  On BE: Oh, I agree.  But I'm biased.  While I'm American-born and mostly-raised, I learned to read and write in England, have spent a lot of time in Ireland, and have lived in Canada, so I ain't wedded to none o' them-there 'Mercan Ainglish.  Anyway, make no mistake that people will continue to come after bird capitalization, because it isn't a practice that many feel makes sense in a generalist encyclopedia.  And I'll vote my party line on that one when the debate comes up.  But the current proposal should actually fend off the anti-caps hordes for a while. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't usually get involved in these interminable discussions, which always seem to generate more heat than light (even WT:FAC had to be suspended by admin action a few weeks ago while the blood was mopped up &mdash; made this look like a model of restraint!), so I (probably) won't make any further comments after this. What it comes down to for me is that, illogical or not, species capitalisation is something that WP:B is 100% behind and feels strongly about (you may have noticed). There are far more damaging things happening to Wikipedia than caps, with its growing emphasis on tons of crap, rather than better quality, and the periodic subversion of WP:GA and WP:DYK. For me, the important thing is that we are volunteers trying to do something worthwhile. If your proposal can cut us some slack, at least until the next time around, that's good.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's obvious that WP:BIRDS will never stop capitalizing. That why I've said, here (in discussion above), at Sabine's page, at WT:MOS that I've basically thrown up my hand about it and am just focused on getting MOS in shape to stop "Common Cat" and "Goldfish", and leave your project alone. Doesn't mean anyone else will leave your project alone, though. I agree with you entirely that there are other problems of greater importance, which is why I've been trying to compromise.  In Dec. I was hell-bent on going after WP:BIRDS, then I realized that at least your practice was consistent and has sources. I don't agree with the rationales, but the rationales are not stupid or crazy; reasonable people can disagree.  For capitalizing Eastern Newt and Pallas's Cat and so on there usually are no rationales at all, and where there are anything they are exceedingly weak, far weaker than yours. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally, a little story. There was a long running battle whether Gavia immer should be Great Northern Diver (original variety of English used for the article) or Common Loon (the majority breed in NAm, although they are a common winter visitor to European coasts). The organisation that standardises bird names, the IOC came up with... Great Northern Loon! A made-up name never used in real life, but settled the argument for good.  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen that sort of thing before in herpetology. I don't have a degree in it, but I'm an experienced amateur amphibologist. At one time I probably had more different salamander species in one collection than anyone on the continent, natural history museums included. Then an unusual Asian newt I bought at  in San Francisco (I hope search engines pick this up) had a virulent disease, and it wiped out the entire menagerie in less than a week.  I found out later that they're notorious for diseased animals and should be shut down. I've never gotten another salamander.  Broke my heart too much.  I just stick to a couple of a cats. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments, again

 * I will address some of your other points later (RL, ugh), but quickly If you'd actually quit Wikipedia over it, you need to re-examine your priorities and perhaps your reasons for participating in this project at all. - Okay, look, the thing is that it isn't that we love capitals (we love birds), it is that being forced to do something we strenuously object to would fundamentally alter the relationship between ourselves and the Wiki. It is hard to explain, and perhaps the relationship has already changed and we're in denial. In which case we're just trying to put off leaving. But people do leave because of philosophical differences, as hard as it may be to break away from something you've invested in.
 * Sure, it's obvious that WP:BIRDS will never stop capitalizing. I disagree. If the strongest adherents are driven out for the reasons above, like WP:Mammal I think the rest would give up. But I think that the birds will continue to be capitalised for years after any switch. There are 10,000 species, around 3,000 genera (I think) and hundreds of family and order articles. I can't imagine that WP:BIRD would have much enthusiasm for the task. We've been moving the articles to the IOc names for years and still haven't finished and that is a much smaller task that we actually chose to do. And I don't imagine for a second the people who have been pushing us for years would be there eager to help us. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood. I don't need to get into details, but I think you understand by now that many, many people all over WP feel exactly this way about being forced by your project to capitalize bird names, and they're a much larger number, if scattered, than your entire project. I do genuinely understand your sentiment, though, and have felt it too, since I've been around almost as long as you, and have bsen WP become more and more rulebound. I was, on the basis of WP:NOT policy, one of the staunchest opponents of WP:N, back when it was a pre-guideline proposal. When I first started reading MOS in detail, I tried to change about 50 things in it, in one day.  I've also, I think, mentioned that the leaving of early "visionary" types in response to increased rules and rigidity is a normal, well documented aspect of organizational growth.  I have thought about leaving several times, but I get drawn back in by the value of the project. I've had to realize that I'll never be an admin here, unless hell freezes over, and that pains me, because I could be very useful as one, and I feel I deserve the trust that I wouldn't abuse the tools (being a forceful debater doesn't mean I'd ban people or delete articles for the wrong reason). I've had to realize that I could spend every waking moment for the next five years fighting the detestable practice of sentence case in headings, and I'll never get anywhere, and just give myself an ulcer.  WP:BIRDS people will have to go through similar soul-searching.  I have no doubt that some will leave, but, really, how many editors with over 5 years of regular contributions are there on the system at all?  People come, people go.
 * Agreed. I was a bit facetious of me to say that.  What I really meant is that the current cadre of most vocal editors at the project are unlikely to give the practice up, and some will clearly quit, at least for a while, over it if "made" to do so [me, if I were that dead-set on it, I'd continue doing it under a WP:IAR basis.]. The "go on strike" proposal shows this. The fact that KimvdLinde almost did quit (and still might - her userpage still has retired on it), is one of the reasons I've backed off so much. (We've actually agreed to mediation, which I initiated last night.) With regard to WP:MAMMAL, it was more complicated than that; the preponderance of the evidence was that there's an actual explicit convention  capitalization of mammal common names (not as strong, I think, as IOC's case for it in bird), and only scattered support for it in some specialities; the idea collapsed on its own, not because of "outsider attack".  I think you are probably right on all the "fallout" predictions. It would be a lot of tedious work, and unhappy work for birders, meanwhile others wouldn't be volunteering to help, at least not much.  I actually  sometimes take an hour or whatever to de-caps an article and usually do lots of other cleanup in it. I've done that recently with Przewalski's horse, St. John's water dog, mountain dog, domestic short-haired cat, etc.  But I'm probably unusual. Someone on my talk page above, though, says they've been at it, too. Who knows. I'm just tired of the debate and want people to stop capitalizing things like Przewalski's Horse. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The tightening of WP:RFA is one of the many trends that worry me about WP. I used to assume that I would never be an admin, and was really surprised that I was made one. But things have gotten worse at a time when we need more of them than ever. But yeah I know that things change as a organisation grows. That doesn't mean we can't fight some of the changes, if for no other reason that to make that change prove its worth. I guess it is worth remembering that Wikipedia is still highly valued by the world in spite of our vandals, inconsistencies, messiness and other associated faults. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heartily agreed on all points, even if we don't see eye to eye on exactly which changes to resist. :-) — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Sc
Template:Sc has been nominated for merging with Template:Smallcaps. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to comments at WP:Birds
Hi. I'm copying this here because you implied you might not come back to reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds.

There are a number of points to respond to here, but I'll start with one. There's no "1000 to 1" or any other such vast majority who think capitalized common names look "stoopid", and we're not writing just for ornithologists. In 1996, the total sale of Peterson field guides was estimated at 18 million (Diane Schmidt, A Guide to Field Guides). On the one hand, some people have more than one. (I have two of their bird guides and one of their wildflower guides, all of which capitalize common names.) On the other hand, birdwatching has been growing rapidly in popularity and is one of the most popular hobbies in the United States  and Britain. And more than one person in a household may have looked at their field guide. And probably many birdwatchers these days don't have a Peterson guide at all. And if people aren't interested enough to get a field guide, they may still look at Web sites such as All About Birds and WhatBird (site blocked). Furthermore, some field guides on other subjects (such as The Kaufman Guide to Insects) capitalize, as do Web sites such as BugGuide (see for example this species page), although others don't. So I would estimate that a substantial minority of literate Americans are used to seeing capitalized species names in their sources for authoritative information on species. Presumably these people are overrepresented among people who look at our bird articles.

In general (as you'll have observed), most people don't care about style points. I very rarely hear complaints about it (outside Wikipedia, maybe once). Of those who care about this one, I think it's quite possible that the majority prefer capitalization. I think it's even more likely that the trend will be toward capitalization, not away from it. But in any case, please stop saying that all the soccer moms dislike capitalization.

I realize this is irrelevant to your "firewall" proposal, but you do keep bringing it up. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course there are 1000:1, more like 50,000:1 or more, of people who do not think it is proper to capitalize common names of animals, any more than they'd capitalize Shoes and Truck and Flowerpot. Otherwise all the major style guides like Chicago and Hart's and so on, would all say "capitalize the common names of animals" (or birds more specifically or whatever level you want to argue this on). The people who think it's "right" are specialists in a few fields (and not even all of them in those fields). The fact that lots of people buy bird field guides and don't rise up in arms to burn down the publishing house or whatever doesn't mean that all of those people also agree that the capitalization used in the field guides to make the common names stand out is what should be done in an encyclopedia or any other non-specialist work. Otherwise most or all non-specialist works would do it, yet virtually zero of them do.  This has nothing to do with whether birdwatching is popular, only to do with whether what is done in ornithology journals and bird books has jack to do with how to write an encyclopedia. Seven years of other editors, from all walks of life and fields and experience and viewpoints, telling you it doesn't should have sunk in by now.
 * I don't understand why your project and most editors in it continually pretend not to hear the basic argument: What is done in specialist publications is not what the majority of people think should be done in a general encyclopedia. This has been demonstrated at VPP more than once, and is why MOS has had a default against capitalization of animal names for over 4 years, despite your project doing everything in its power to derail every debate about animal capitalization that arises. I don't know what you mean about Peterson guides... I re-read, and do get it now., because it's not about what bird field guides do, it's about what encyclopedias do: Which is never capitalize the common names of animals, including birds.  If the trend were toward capitalization, we'd've already seen that, not the opposite. Every time the issue comes up outside your own talk page, the majority of respondents oppose it (except when, as in this case, someone like KimvdLinde canvasses your project to show up en masse and dominate the debate with circular arguments and IDHT "noise".
 * What your project is doing is insisting that what is done in specialist literature like bird guides and bird journals be done in an encyclopedia, when the real world shows you otherwise in every single case. There is no encyclopedia on the planet (judging from from previous debates where people have spent large amounts of time looking at non-specialist reliable source style) that obeys your caps convention. With one single exception, even non-orn. biology & science journals will not use it when publishing orn. articles!  But whatever.  I'm tired of having circular debates about this.  Your entire project simply pretends that the arguments against your practice have never been made and that evidence has never been presented, and that your own have never been refuted, when the opposite is the case, x7 years.  And I'm not even trying to stop you any more, I'm trying to stop Domestic Cat and Lion and Goldfish. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Sorry if that reply came across as testy; it's been a stressful day. I honestly don't care any more what your project does, I just want MOS to firewall it so that people stop capitalizing everything else. At least your project  for doing so.  I and others disagree with it, but it's not crazy or stupid, and the fact that you can point to an international body that has published an official list of [capitalized] common names, that all ornithologists use, is different from any other field. It's a weak excuse, but other fields have none whatsoever.  The fact that this random website or that capitalizes or doesn't isn't relevant.  Take WP:FISH for example. They note that a major website they like to cite does not capitalize, and that a major ichythological body (I forget which - too many acronyms!) does.  The project doesn't, probably because they don't want 7 years of flamewarring like your project has had to withstand, with plenty more to come from plenty more people who want to follow plain-English grammar rules in a plain-English encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Chicago states explicitly to follow the rules in the relevant specialist literature. That is what we do. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Chicago names specific literature to follow, and yours is included: "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.118. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary...".— SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)  PS: Since neither the ICBN nor the ICZN have ever issued a standard for or against capitalization, only for what the names are, the Chicago advice  specifically is actually only "consult a dictionary"; they simply phrased it badly. All of this has already been told to you before, here specifically, just like everything else in the debate that you keep re-re-re-recycling just to make more and more text to cloud the debate and wear everyone out. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology, and I'm sorry I added to your stress. I may not be able to answer substantively till Thursday. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 22:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take even longer than I said, but this is not fun.
 * It simply doesn't follow that if the style guides say not to capitalize, then 99.9% or even 50% of readers do not think capitalizing is proper. Maybe if style guides took polls, it would follow.
 * If bird guides do it in a way that's helpful to many readers and encyclopedias don't, we should follow bird guides. The question isn't who does it but what's helpful.  What I'm arguing is that capitalizing is helpful to many readers.  The popularity of birding and other natural history is relevant because it tells you something about the number of readers it will be helpful to.
 * I see no reason that Erik Haugen or Kim van der Linde shouldn't let people know about a debate at MoS that concerns them, and as you probably know by now, some participants in WP:BIRDS didn't show up.
 * Capitalization is not grammar, it's convention. Scientific names are a clear example.  Leaving vernacular names of species aside, you'll find it very hard to define "proper name" grammatically in a way that includes "Monopoly" but not "contract bridge", or "Felidae" but not "the cat family", or "Muslim" but not "atheist". &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it follows. The current (16th) edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, despite being quite expensive and barely different form the previous edition, has an Amazon Best Sellers Rank of #729. That's {{em}out of all books in the world}}. Even people who do not buy it and use Chicago personall, or the British equivent, the Oxford Guide to Style a.k.a. Hart's Rules, which also doesn't capitalize common names, are deeply influenced by it, because all professional editors do, so every newspaper, magazine, etc., it written in accordance with the style rules promulgated thereby, except where they consciously choose, e.g. for specialist reasons, to depart from it. And why would you think that their style advice isn't based on real-world data? They have large staff who do quite a bit of research, actually; that's why they keep changing, to reflect changing patterns of usage. It's been less than four years between Chicago editions and about 6.5 since the last edition of Hart's/Oxford.
 * Why would capitalization be helpful to many readers, when we can simply rewrite to avoid the one problem that capitalization is helpful for?:
 * Bad writing: The Mexican Jay is one of several Mexican jays.
 * Good writing: The Mexican jay is one of several jays native to Mexico.
 * If there were any actual evidence that people are often confused by lower-case species common names, we'd see it all the time. But we don't. Bird guides capitalize to make the name stand out. People tend to read those in a hurry, trying to find the bird outside their window before it flies off. Orn. journals capitalize because the IOC says to, and IOC arrived at that decision out of the blue. People just went along with it, by what appears to be blind coincident but was surely a lot of wheel-greasing to get to journals and other publishers to go along. When the American Fisheries Society decided that the new version of their list of fish common names would include the same capitalization, when they weren't just ignored, they were castigated.
 * While I don't pretend that you are or should be in some kind of lockstep with a WikiProject, I do have to observe that WP:BIRDS members frequently make a strenuous argument that "the question who does it", and demand that bird specialist publications be recognized as more authoritative than generalist ones on this grammar/style point simply because birds happen to be the subject.  This is like saying that if books on stamp collecting decided to start capitalizing things like Performation, Stamp, Stamp Album, Watermark, Ink, Paper, etc. that WP would go along with this in articles about philately. WP doesn't make  exception of this sort – preferring specialist capitalization where it conflicts with basic grammar/style rules – anywhere on the system, because doing so invites utter chaos, as every project/topic would demand exceptions for every rule on everything.  ANyway, I think it's interesting that you contradict other project members' argument from authority and rely only on a utility argument. Makes me wonder how many others over there realize that the from authority is fallacious.  Anyway, WP:MOS is explicitly predicated upon what reliable general sources do when it comes to grammar and style, whether you agree this is a good idea or not, and only defers to specialist style when it doesn't conflict with general style.
 * Birding being popular doesn't mean that capitalization will be more "helpful" to more people, simply familiar to a larger subset than, say, capitalizing the names of worms or nematodes or other less popular topics than birds. You argument doesn't follow; either it's helpful generally, or its not. If it's only helpful for a topical subset, this is an argument in favor of my position, not yours. :-)
 * I'm unaware of anyone criticizing Erik. KimvdLinde was found by WP:AN/I to have engaged in "unfortunate canvassing", because she did not post a calm, neutrally worded notice, she posted a call to arms that resulted in poll stacking. Not sure what your "some participants didn't show up" point is. Of course some didn't; the project have over 100 members, and most of them are here to write articles, not engage in wikipolitical debates, right? Heh.
 * A very large number of people consider proper capitalization to be a major part of written grammar. Even if they didn't, you're just splitting hairs, like saying "the speed limit's not really a in the classic sense, it's a ."  The cops will still give you a speeding ticket!  D'oh.
 * I find zero difficulty distinguishing the cases you raise. The game Monopoly is a registered trademark.  Capitalization of taxa higher than species is a convention supported by all generalist (Chicago, Oxford, etc.) style guides, and does not conflict with everyday usage.  Atheism isn't a religion, but the absence of one; it's a philosophy like agnosticism, libertarianism, etc., and per all generalist style guides we capitalize religions and their adherents, like nations and nationalities, but not philosophies (unless eponymous, e.g. Marxism) and followers of them.
 * Anyway, I don't much care any more whether the birds project capitalizes or not. Their position is actually marginally stronger on the "it's a worldwide standard" basis than for capitalization of salamander names or comic book collecting terms or car part names, and capitalization of that sort of stuff all over the place is why I and so many others have had a bee in our bonnet about this. (That said, there are people who hate, hate, hate the birds capitalization scheme specifically and will still try to stop it.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No doubt the style guides keep up to date on what's published, as you say, but I know of no reason to think they have data on what readers think is proper, and that's what we were talking about. The fact that most people don't capitalize bird names (which I agree with) doesn't mean they think it's improper, any more than the correspond fact on en dashes.
 * I may have been imprecise when I said it doesn't matter who says it. As I said somewhere at MOS Talk, I think the IOC's usage is the other valid reason since we've chosen them as our authority for common names, along with improved communication.  What I meant above is that it doesn't matter whether encyclopedias don't capitalize and field guides do or the other way around.  I know some people on both sides of the debate think it does matter, and I'd estimate that 0% of them consider their views fallacious.
 * Speaking of mattering, it does matter whether you call your preferred capitalization "plain-English grammar rules", since doing so suggests that any other convention is like "This place perceptible to view of the beholders that passes by" or "The guy hummingbird don't never take no care of the babies." But it's not; it's just a different convention used in edited text.
 * I wasn't suggesting that you would have trouble determining which of my examples should be capitalized. I meant that it's a matter of convention&mdash;there's no grammatical way to determine, because the syntax of "Muslim" is identical to that of "atheist", etc.  This is, I believe, the same thing Noetica was saying here.
 * That's all I have time for now. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not following your reasoning on this. Why would major publishers of style guides not pay any attention to what  think? CMoS has a blog, full of comments and responses to them, for example.  Their editorial staff engage on a daily basis with people and their opinions on style matters.  Of course they notice and care. Regardless, "the fact that most people don't capitalize bird names... doesn't mean they think it's improper" doesn't wash.  Of course they do.  People derive their sense of what is and isn't acceptable (prescriptivist: "correct"; traditionalist: "proper") English usage and in what registers and contexts from what they see and hear every day, first and foremost, followed in emphatically  order by dictionaries, general style guides, encyclopedias, specialized style guides and dictionaries (AP Style Manual or the Guardian UK equivalent for journalism, Garner's Red Book for law, etc.), and specialist topic-specifc works like field guides and journals . No one on this earth is going to go buy a bird book to figure out whether to capitalize bird names. They already know, from daily experience with the English language, not to do that (and know not to do in general prose, even if they encounter it as a subcultural colloquialism in bird specialty books). "The fact that most people don't capitalize" the common names of animals absolutely means that most people think its improper, for exactly the same reason we don't find "birdses" acceptable unless it humorously comes from Gollum's mouth, or sit still for spelling supersede as "supercede", "superceed" or "soopurrsiid". The fact that 99%+ of people will never check anything more specialist than a dictionary, style guide or encyclopedia to get their answer, means that their feelings with regard to things like this are massively and uniformly reinforced. Until they encounter something "geeky", like bird field guides or orn. journal articles.
 * You have been strongly disagreed with by more people than I can count for seven years running that this is seen by many others as "just a different convention used in edited text", and virtually all evidence backs up the view in opposition to yours, since virtulaly all edited text aside from bird specialist works does not capitalize bird common names. There is no way around these facts.  Re: Muslim and atheist: But I just demonstrated that there  a way to distinguish them, one that all style guide agree on. No one ever said it had anything to do with syntax, and I never implied a definition of "grammatical" that was that narrow. I believe you are misinterpreting Noetica and what he's doing (which I support) at WT:MOSCAPS. It's a mistake to assume that all capitalization debates raise the same issues. Heck, even the debate over capitalization of dog/horse/cat/etc. breeds and plant cultivars is radically different from that over upper-casing common names of species. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As at MOS Talk, I'm not going to answer any of this either, since I got the impression you don't want me to. If you do, let me know, and I will (though maybe rather slowly, as before).  I'll watch this page for a while. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 18:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Replies are a good thing. :-) Reasonable people can disagree, and often come to less disagreement after their reasons have played out. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense to me. I'll reply here within a few days. &mdash;JerryFriedman  (Talk) 23:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Found an answer
(Also Elen of the Roads replied too)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. I am of course being savagely attacked for even bringing the matter up. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except by the arbitrator in question,, who actually agreed with me and recused. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Hello. I got your email. I believe that, at this point, an RfC may not be necessary. The most inflammatory member of the pro-cap side just expressed acceptance of some compromise text. (It's almost identical to something I proposed last month, but whatever; now it looks good to her, so okay.) That will probably be enough for your original plan of synching all the guidelines so that they no longer contradict each other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! But, I'm already meeting great revert-war resistance even at WP:MOSCAPS just trying to get it to agree with what MOS says, much less what's been the subject of dispute (the "is controversial"/"doesn't have Wikipedia-wide consensus" bit). Two editors at that subguideline have been mass-reverting every single change I've ever make there, regardless what it is.  Trying to get WP:FLORA and especially WP:FNAME to go along is going to be ... interesting.  I may just sit that out and let others deal with it, because there's too much of a "burn SMcCandlish at the stake" witchhunt going on right now. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not the best equipped defender of a proposal at this level but I don't think an RfC needs to be started by a defender, just someone who can present the question in a neutral manner. If its decided at Talk MOS to move to an RfC and no one more qualified steps up I am willing to organize it once details are ironed out. I think the question should cover all exceptions to organism common name capitalization. Joja lozzo  19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. Makes sense to me. I think that the latest iteration (i.e., use existing guidance, and put reliably sourced alt-caps version[s] in the lead, use lower case otherwise) is the obvious proposal to lead with since it's requires the least change and would just ask the community to reaffirm practices we already use. In that event, there's no need to individually cover every alleged exception to common name capitalization, since it's a bit of a moot question. Besides, we can't know what those are without doing a lot of research; some of them are controversial within their fields; only WP:BIRDS makes a big deal out of this; and so on.  I.e., avoid opening worm cans unless fishing. The last thing we need is to encourage, say, fans of capitalizing "Blue Whale" and "the Great Apes", ideas long since rejected (specifically) by consensus even in their own projects, to come out of the woodwork to cloud the debate by demanding "new" "exceptions".  There shouldn't be any exception at all; anyone who wants one can cite WP:IAR and see if people buy it. The biggest hurdle is really going to be the specialist straw man fallacy, which caps proponents invariably use to derail discussion, so an RfC that pre-emptively addresses it will be less likely to be shunted off its tracks by misdirection. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll see how it goes at WT:MOS... (did you see my note at Wikipedia talk:Specialist straw man) Joja  lozzo  00:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just now. That was a good idea. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Persian
In case you missed it, I replied to your comments on Talk:Persian_(cat) a while back.--Dodo bird (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that; thanks for the note. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How specialized is Wikipedia?
One of the issues highlighted for me by the debate on the capitalization of English names of species is the level of specialization appropriate to Wikipedia. I only started editing seriously when I semi-retired in 2009, and I work almost entirely on plant-related articles, since that's my hobby interest. The level I've aimed for has been determined by what fellow plant editors thought appropriate and the articles they rated highly; for example Nepenthes rajah – a GA and a plant that interests me.

As I write this I have behind me several shelves of field guides to wild flowers, gardening encyclopaedias (such as the Alpine Garden Society's Encyclopaedia of Alpines), specialist gardening books (e.g. on bulbs or specific genera like Iris), Anderson's 776 page book The Cactus Family, etc. It seems to me, looking at what you have written on talk pages, and the list of works you collected to exemplify the appropriate style for species name capitalization, that you think that many if not most of these books are more specialized than Wikipedia should be.

But Nepenthes rajah couldn't be written using only sources of this level. The list of references shows that many original scientific papers were consulted. Of course the material has not been reproduced at the same level as these papers, but nevertheless, this article is at a far more specialized and technical level than any of the books on my shelves I've listed above.

I recently managed to take Schlumbergera to GA status. I own the definitive book on this genus; it's one of the more specialized works on my shelves. Yet I still had to use a journal paper as well, and to get the article up to the standard I'd really like (which means more on phylogeny and evolution) I need to use three or four more journal papers which I'm still digesting.

I'm confident now (I wasn't six months ago) that I understand the level that editors of good plant articles are aiming for. At one time WP:SECONDARY bothered me, but it's clear that really good plant articles can't be written without using journal articles. [Ironically, it seems to me that this level is actually beyond the level at which British books capitalize plant names (e.g. field guides) and is closer to the level of scientific monographs which are much less likely to do so. However this post is most definitely not about that debate!]

So to some questions – all genuine, not rhetorical or debating. Am I mis-understanding what you mean by "specialized"? Do you think that articles like Nepenthes rajah are at the right level for Wikipedia? How about these (unfinished) sections I've just added to Cactus: Cactus, Cactus? Or this at most C class article I wrote (one of a set on species of Roscoea): Roscoea cangshanensis? Have science-related articles in Wikipedia perhaps changed since, say, 2007, becoming much more overtly scientific in tone? Is there a difference between science-related articles and others? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For me it's a matter of always, always keeping the general readership in mind. I've not read every word of Nepenthes rajah, but what I did read seemed to be doing this appropriately. WP:ENC says Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", and this seems like a good description. Because WP isn't paper we're not forced to exclude specialized information for reasons of space, only to remember that our readership is the most general in the world, so if we're going to cover technical/specialist topics or include specialized information in general topics, it needs to be written in a way that speaks to the broadest number of readers.  This isn't "dumbing down" – it's not omission of or glossing over facts because we haughtily think too few readers could grasp it, or writing in Simplified English, its just taking the time and care to make the prose parseable and well-linked enough for people who don't have advanced degrees in whatever we do, if anything.


 * I think Cactus does this admirably well. Cactus is a bit more challenging and could use some more linking (e.g. right at the top, "Bayesian" is used with no link).  I'm not sure that all readers of this section will walk away with the probably-intended implication that there's a major problem in cactus naming and classification, namely that they've largely been classified on the basis of appearance, but modern genetics is showing that a large number of them aren't actually closely related,, which is a pretty shocking. From the reader perspective this is big news, but it's kind of buried in jargon. Just adding a summary sentence at top and conclusion sentence at bottom of that section would fix this.  I agree Roscoea cangshanensis is about C-class, and may be a bit dense, but for many species (even of more "dull" animals like various species of salamanders only found in one location but which aren't notably unusual in any other way) there's not much of a way to "jazz up" such an article and make it more reader-engaging. We just have facts, and there they are; we can't help it if the facts are dry sometimes.


 * I would say that there are two countervailing forces at work that together continually produce better science articles:
 * Increase in the scientific detail level in articles – this is happening because more specialists are devoting time to WP editing, more and more sources are easily available online, more standardization (e.g. of what sections a biological article should have and what info should be in each) means non-specialist editors can make useful contributions adding missing bits here and there with the easily-found sources, and so on.
 * Increase in copyediting – there's a whole Guild of Copyeditors project and a plenty of editors focused primarily on "massaging" text for easier reader consumption rather than adding sourced facts.


 * I do think articles are increasing in scientific richness, and that this can result in "geeky" articles sometimes, but that at least for higher profile articles, the ones more people are likely to read like cactus, and even Nepenthes rajah (carnivorous plants being a favorite schoolboy essay topic, along with dinosaurs, robots, gladiators, rock stars and spaceships), the copyediting force balances things out. Articles on topics like albinism (which has forked per WP:SUMMARY into subarticles like oculocutaneous albinism) have  improved in just 2–4 years, in  level of medical detail and in readability by mere mortals. :-)  I spent a lot of time on that one.


 * I am hoping that most WP articles on plants would be better than their entries in field guides. This wouldn't, despite the arguments of some people at WP:BIRDS, mean that "Wikipedia is also a specialist work", because, only the richness of the sourced information.  I actually do think, based on statements some of them have made, that members of some projects like that one are in fact writing articles with other specialists in mind rather or at least more than English-speakers generally, and this can be problematic. To the extent such editors simply add "geeky" information and  get in the way of copyeditors trying to make it more friendly, they do more good than harm of course, but this isn't always the case, unfortunately, and they can become entrenched and like a private article-controlling club.


 * The difference I personally see between science articles here and many (not all) other types is a higher expectation of very reliable sourcing (we also have this expectation of bios of living people and I think I detect it with regard to matters of political debate pretty frequently). This is unfair, but I think it's kind of natural. People don't really care all that much whether, say, the details cited at three-ball or The Flintstones are perfectly sourced, but because science is precise and based on reliable evidence, the expectation is that articles on it here will be, too.


 * So, anyway, to answer what I think the underlying question is, the difference between a science Wikipedia article and a "specialist source" is in the writing and its intended audience, not the complexity- or detail-level of the scientific information in it. There are WP articles with far more detail about a plant or animal than various journal articles (which after all are often about one narrow detail, like a specific allele) centered on the same organism, but WP remains a generalist work, because it's written by generalists and some specialists, for the world's most general audience, using plain English to the extent this is feasible.


 * That's my pair of coins, at any rate. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Very interesting, thanks. I'll certainly try to act on your helpful suggestions re Cactus. I just wish there were more active copyeditors who could be called on. I've spent my working life writing for university students and other academics; I know I can write clearly for them (students quickly made it clear if I didn't!), but writing for a more general readership isn't easy for me. I used to think that something like Scientific American would be a guide, but many science articles in Wikipedia now are much more technical than it is.
 * I think there are problems with trying to maintain a unified style (which I definitely regard as the ideal) when Wikipedia is both so diverse and so deep – it really doesn't have a comparator now, I think; no paper encyclopaedia is ever going to be able to compete in either respect. (This point isn't about the capitalization discussion, by the way, which I regard as a very parochial issue.) Sourcing and referencing is a much more important one: there are, as you picked out above, major differences between parts of Wikipedia in this respect. I'd never heard of three-ball, so you've contributed to my education (I am quite a fan of snooker). When I read the article, I immediately wanted to add to this statement "The game involves a somewhat more significant amount of luck than either nine-ball or eight-ball, because of the disproportionate value of pocketing balls on the break shot and incresed difficulty of doing so." (I refrained from doing so!) I can see that source and referencing is treated very differently in different areas of Wikipedia, but I'm not convinced that it should be. Anyway, enough said for now. Thanks again for your interesting comments. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that our sci. articles are these days getting more technical than Scientific American. I'm not sure this is terribly problematic as long as the lead is general, and each section has an intro/outro that "eases the passage" of the denser material.  The three-ball comment should have a  on it, though there essentially are no reliable sources on the game at all, since it's a folk pastime. I think I'm even the one who added the objectionable observation, which I saw as basic statistics, thus needing no citation, when I added it; but my views on sourcing have become stricter as WP has moved from an eventualist experiment to the immediatist reality of being one of the top 5 most-use websites in the world.  I agree that the sourcing shouldn't be treated differently, it just has been because of people's perceptions. PS: And thank you for bringing the discussion up. :-)  It's nice to talk about something other than letter case for a change! — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: I inherited a whole roomful of epiphyllums. Structurally, they mostly look at lot like Schlumbergera, though much less floral. They grow very fast! — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually if grown well (sorry for the implied criticism!), they should be more floral. I have somewhere a photo of a display of epiphyllums in flower in a commercial nursery in England (I'll try to find it), and they are just breath-taking; covered with flowers. But an epiphyllum is hard to grow well in a house, I think, as it seems to need more humidity and higher temperatures than a Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter [C/c]actus. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a "black thumb". Can hardly keep a lawn alive. That humidity thing must be it. I live in New Mexico and don't have a greenhouse, so they're probably very unhappy.  The 2 that have flowered in 2 years have produced a grand total of less than a dozen flowers, and those lasted around 2 to 10 days. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Natatores
Natatores is a clade containing loons and some other swimming birds, not a "class" or "order" or some such thing. I don't know that it's controversial, but it's being displayed due to it being in the Automatic taxobox hierarchy (which presents a standard agreed upon classification across all articles). It's actually a bit too broad for that specific page and I'm not sure why it's showing up there but I'll look into it. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keen-o. Just seemed weird that something with no article that doesn't correspond to a normal taxonomical level was included, is all. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Dfn
I temporarily reverted your last edit to this template, as it created a Template loop error message. I'm not entirely sure I understand the code, so thought it best to revert and let you know. Regards, —WFC— 05:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I forgot to test before saving. Durrr... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

 * I had to do some repair work on this template; it was miscategorizing user talk pages, and killing their tables of contents. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A.k.a.
Hi SMcCandlish--

I notice your use of "a.k.a." yesterday. You may not remember this conversation, referring to Manual of Style/Abbreviations. This still now reads Is it your assumption that this style advice should remain as is, or be changed to "a.k.a.", as I had originally inquired? Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AKA | also known as | AKA should only be used in small spaces. It does not need to be linked.
 * I've included it as at least permissible. I think it's actually preferable, but others might not agree. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good edit - thanks for doing this. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question re: slang as opposed to colloquialism
Hi again -- this time some advice would be helpful in an absurd move proposal requesting, of all things, a move from Nocturnal penile tumescence to Morning wood. As it stands right now, the latter is a disambiguation page. Naturally enough the dab is subject to pretty frequent vandalism, but also to good faith edits. Most recently the movant for the article title had edited the dab, and User:Dicklyon reverted. Once I came to the move proposal and saw Dick's note, I looked at the dab and found bad punctuation. While I was in edit mode it occurred to me that the phrasing was poor, and ended up editing both phrasing and punctuation, changing from to Only later did I look back through the edit history to find that for most of its history it was given as something to the effect of Colloquialism and Slang are related but not identical concepts, as discussed in the latter article, which also states I wonder if you might care to look at either of the two pages presently at issue, and make any suggestions. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Morning wood refers to the phenomenon of penile erection following sleep, see; nocturnal penile tumescence.
 * Morning wood is a slang term referring to the phenomenon of penile erection during or following sleep; see nocturnal penile tumescence.
 * Morning wood is a colloquialism referring to the phenomenon of penile erection following sleep, related to nocturnal penile tumescence.
 * Slang is often used as a euphemism...
 * That is an absurd move proposal. My eyes hurt after working on a 3,000-line article's code for hours and hours, so I'll have to try to get to this tomorrow. Seriously, it's like I'm on acid or something, my eyes are freaking out so bad. Zoiks. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The move proposal was shot down, and the text at the DAB page correctly says "slang", so our work is done. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw your fixes - thanks for your help with this. I also went back to the NPT article and removed slang terms there. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If they're reliably sourced they should stay in, and should redirect to the article (or in the case of morning wood be a DAB page). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they weren't. (In fact I did fix some refs there, but the latter half of the article is still unsourced.) Milkunderwood (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keen-o. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: request
Done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the talk page and history, though that took quite a bit longer than I expected; that's all fixed now though. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Schweet! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of English irregular verbs
I happened to wander by this article yesterday (Edit: probably from learnt), and did some minor cleanup. (Looking now, I don't see your name listed as an editor there.) I also had a conversation with User:Kevin McE, who claims that in "much of Britain" people pronounce the word says as ("sāyz", rhyming with "bays", "daze", "faze", etc) rather than with . I'm not that familiar with BritEng, so I have to take his word for it. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure where Kevin McE comes from, but in my experience, only is used in most of England in normal speech; in such a context  sounds Irish to me as an English person. (The "fuller" pronunciation might perhaps be found in slow speech in a stressed context "Says who?", but not otherwise.) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having lived in both England and Ireland, I'd concur; maybe some Scottish dialects have that sound as well. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I also did a bit of editorializing at Talk:List of English irregular verbs, and would be curious to know if you think I'm off base. I'm no expert.

One thing that did strike me about that list is that where alternate forms are given, it states that preferred forms are given first. But this is really an oversimplification, because it frequently depends on context, such as hung as opposed to hanged. Or see for instance American Heritage's usage note below their entry for wake: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry?id=W0011300. On the other hand this article is merely a list of irregular verbs, and trying to distinguish usages may be just extraneous clutter. If you ever have some free time you might want to take a look there. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a potential hornet's nest. >;-) Anyway, having a "preferred" form in the article seems to be a WP:NPOV-pushing excercise, unless we're indicating what reliable sources are saying about particular dialects. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was my general impression that the whole article needs some serious work. In the context of reliable sources, did you (either of you?) have a comment about my little editorial on the talkpage there? If so, probably best to post there rather than here. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and posted this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. As you say, it's a real hornet's nest - or hopefully, more just a can of worms. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— This, that, and the other (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil posts at WP:MOS
Hi, could you please refractor your attacks on me at the WP:MOS page. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I stand by every word of it. You are one of the most personally poisonous, disruptive, psychodramatic and tendentious people I have ever encountered since the worst flamewars of the early-'90s Usenet. You do your utmost to derail any debate you can't win, grossly abused the dispute resolution process for WP:POINTmaking, and have engaged in a campaign of personally motivated and hate-filled character assassination. WP:SPADE, and I'm sticking to it. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I changed my mind. I redacted your username, and took the issue to your talk page. Seems fair enough, since a) you didn't really leave, so your talk page is now presumably active again, and b) I was critical of your attacking me at WT:BIRDS instead of bringing it to user talk. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, just redacting my name, with the rest left intact, won't do. So, I request again that you remove your personal attacks on me from WP:MOS. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC) BTW, this was not the first time you attacked me there.
 * It's not an attack, its a description of disruptive editing behavior patterns in that ongoing debate, and in response to one of your own project members suggesting that I have no evidence of such disruption. While I'm certain the post doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, I have no reason to redact it. You do not have a natural right to be free from criticism. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, we disagree whether "engages in a fit of public psychodramatics, and histrionically "quits Wikipedia"" is an attack or not. So, I ask a one last time to refractor that statement as well as the "I'd be half surprised if she wasn't the direct inspiration of the page at WP:DIVA, since it describes her behavior with exacting accuracy.". -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see you redacting things like or, among many others.  Two words for you: tea pot. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, your choice to ignore my request for the third time. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As you are ignoring mine. You've twice attacked me on the same WT:BIRDS page, and I'm not even getting into what you've said at MOS, DRN, etc. If you won't bend, why should I? — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Complained filed
I filed a complaint here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited White people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Passing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:More plot
Template:More plot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Big coding problem at the glossary
Hey Stanton. Something is very wrong with the coding at the glossary, where numerous entries are not displaying anything where gueloss2 is used. See, for example ("Short for .") or   ("Contrast .").--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking into it. Something had to break, huh? — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just a dumb typo on my part. I forgot to close a . All fixed! — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ack, good. I was getting ready to revert back to a month ago if you weren't around. It occurs to me that vandalism to these would affect a lot of content so I have semi-protected both and move protected them as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A plan of goodness. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ballet templates
perhaps I wasn't clear in Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 19. if you look at Template:Agon it's just a hardcoded frontend to template:pas de huit. so when you express the opinion to delete template:Zakouski, I would think the same rationale would apply to most of the templates in this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I get it now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

И
И is the Cyrillic letter I. It cannot be used as a backwards N just because it resembles one. Georgia guy (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed this at Talk:Client (band). The fact that the band does exactly this may be inconvenient or annoying to you, but it is a fact. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TFD for merging templates
I have removed the merge templates you added to templates. See WP:TFD for merging templates. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What templates? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You added them in these edits:, and , though you seem to have remembered. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't; I just dug it out of your edit history. :-) That said, I'm unaware of any policy that requires template merge discussions to happen at TfD; it's often more expedient to handle it via the template's own talk pages. I nearly just boldly merged all these, since no one objected, but a three way merge might be better a a TfD discussion in this case. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Merge points out Categories and Templates do not use the template, and attempts to do so are listed at Category:Items to be merged. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Template documentation isn't policy, and I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that is "misprocess" to use merge templates ant template talk to merge templates when controversy isn't likely. People have been using merge templates since they've existed to suggest template merges, when they might need some discussion, but aren't likely to arouse site-wide interest at TfD. It's not "wrong" to suggest merges this way. Categories are more complicated and even for trivial stuff have to be handled at CfD. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 14:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for working on MOS:SAL
Thanks for working on this. I wasn't even sure anyone checked the talk page there regularly anymore. I've never been sure of how to address the issue of comparisons and lists, but at least we have a start now. I did do some research a year or two back and found that historically we did once have a lot of "lists of wikilinks" which had been named "comparison of", but those appeared to have been renamed long ago. Comparison articles seem to be somewhat of an orphan within the Manual of Style with no MoS pages covering their naming, layout, etc. This seems to be due to the evolution of comparison articles, in that when the style guides were originally written, we didn't really have comparison articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I added Comparison of Linux distributions as a well-developed example. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that I was able to find 3 distinct types of comparison articles, but I will need to spend some time to find good examples again. Somehow we also need to find a way to address this sort of problem. This was an example I brought up at WT:NPOV. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm seeing the problem. The entries removed were either sourced to their own sites (WP:COI/WP:SPS/WP:SPAM) or to whitepapers proposing the systems (WP:CRYSTALBALL), not to indepenent sources, nor linked to articles about them here with such independent sources. The edit summary's use of "notability" is wrong, because that applies to articles, not list membership, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE militates against including every possible thing in a list just because it could be added, rather than being important to add.  Did I miss something?  Maybe you noticed something I didn't. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While this was just one example, and much better examples undoubtedly exist, I don't personally see the laundry list of problems you brought up. It could just be that having seen this exact sort of thing play out 100s of times (if not more) across all sorts of articles within WP:COMP's scope that I have a slightly different take on it. It didn't look like "linkspam" to me, and the removals are a slap in the face towards our contributors; ie "Your contributions don't matter, we don't want you here, now go away". New contributors in particular don't take this very well. While we can almost always find a guideline somewhere that allows us to justify removing just about any content, in the long run doing so will only continue to harm Wikipedia as the editor retention problem continues to grow. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I follow you. If new entries to lists are being blanket reverted per WP:IDONTKNOWIT, then that's certainly an issue. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not even just new entries, even old entries in some lists and entries in wikitables within articles that have been in place for years without issue are being drive-by removed. I'm not sure this would be happening if it weren't for the automated editing tools that make this incredibly easy. If someone had to slow down and write a rationale and explain to a contributor why their contribution is being removed, they might not be so willing to do this. I really don't know what to do about it, but it isn't good for the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Me neither. AWB and other automated tools can be very useful, but also misused (cf. recent discussion at User talk:Alan Liefting). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  01:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead / lede
Did you mean what you typed when you said "lead is a jargon term exclusive to news journalism" in this edit? Pam D  09:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No! D'oh!. Thanks. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Quantum Leap
Moved; see my talk page for the response if you're interested. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My American brother
Is it cold at your home? Be it the season of the american basketball ? Here in Canada we begin our university finales in the women hockey. And then we had a lot of snow. You ski? Which are your projects on wikipedia ?--Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève  (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For sports, I'm all about cue sports. I used to live in Toronto, actually, but the 2004–05 NHL lockout was on the entire time I was there, so I never once got to go to an NHL game. Very sad!  A lot my editing interests are mentioned on my user page. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)  Oh, and no, it's nothing like Canada cold here.  I can sometimes get that way (Albuquerque is around 1 mile in altitude, and mountainous - not all of New Mexico is flat and arid).  But it's been a very mild winter.  I went skiing once, and was terrible at it.  I figure I'd do better at 'boarding, since I used to be skater, but I'm not a huge fan of cold, so I never tired. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What can WP decide?
What can WP decide about the format of pages within the scope of their project? WikiProject Classical music does not approve of infoboxes. See the Simon Rattle article and discussion on the talk page. I think this is an interesting issue that challenges uniformity on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. I think I already ran into this one a few days ago, but will look again. MOS, last I looked, and certainly no policies, require an infobox. There seems to be a widespread consensus that at least many types of article should uniformly have an infobox, but I know of plenty of editors who don't like them, either at all, or in particular situations. I'm on the fence about them myself, because they are problematic in various ways, yet I find myself using them a lot, as a reader, in certain kinds of articles, for certain kinds of info (and never at all for other kinds of info).  It's something that's a big "?" to me, really.  Anyway, I don't think any guideline is in a position to "force" infoboxes on a wikiproject for infobox uniformity. However, wikiprojects are just misc. editors who agree to pool resources to edit collaboratively and have precisely zero authority, per numerous WP:ARBCOM rulings and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy and WP:OWN; they cannot force other editors to follow wikiproject "guidelines".  The upshot is that for any composer, say J. S. Bach, WP:GERMANY, WP:BIO, and other other project the article is in-scope for, as well as any random editors, really, have 100% as much business insisting on an infobox as WP:CLASSICAL has insisting on not having one. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  13:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Simon Rattle article is a music article and a biography, and so the article is within the scope of more than one Wikiproject. I put an infobox on it a long time ago, because I thought that it needed one as an autobiography, but it was soon deleted. I do not know why the music project's policy on infoboxes prevailed. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a "project policy", just opinions. Stick to your guns on this (but way short of WP:3RR). See what I posted over there, in both related threads. There are a lot of cluebags who don't understand how things work here and are trying to bend things to their whim. They will lose. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you be prepared to ...
... drop back over to Kim's talk page (the extended content bit) and drop some sort of apology there? Particularly for your comment [ending with] WP:SPADE, and I'm sticking to it.

I do appreciate that impatience and frustration can get the better of all of us from time to time, but that really was beyond the pale; right in the definition of personal attacks, whichever way one looks at it. I'm really trying to sort something out here which can create a real resolution, not trying to be unpleasant, or baiting, or anything else. Maybe if you could just explain how you felt at the time of posting that kind of thing, and agree that you shouldn't have let those feelings get the better of you, and you're sorry for any distress your comments would have caused? (Striking through the whole lot would probably be a good idea, not just that one comment.)

I know this kind of situation can be bordering on intolerable, and that's certainly a mitigating circumstance, though not a "defence" as such. My own thoughts on this kind of situation are here. Maybe if you re-read what you've written, and consider how you'd feel if someone had said that to your sister / mother / wife / daughter ... would you have felt like thumping them (or smashing a broken bottle into their face, or whatever...) I suspect that if someone had said that to someone you loved, you would probably have been furious, no matter what the provocation. All the best, Pesky  (talk ) 07:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Short version: Sorry, I just WP:don't feed the divas. KimvdLinde took the matter to WP:AN/I, and it was closed there. I've already made retractions and concessions at both WT:MOS and WP:AN/I. I asked for one simple act of meet-me-half-way contrition on her part – retraction of her "there is no good faith from SMcCandlish" attack at WT:BIRDS – and she ignored it, twice. My part is done, and the ball is in her court. We own our own emotions, and KimvdLinde is not a child.  I meant what I said in criticism, even if I could have said it more "nicely". It was harsh, but it did not actually transgress WP:NPA, only WP:CIVIL. The "sister/mother..." bit is a really cheap shot (and the "broken bottle" bit creepy...); Kim has no "natural right" to be free from criticism for tendentiously disruptive editing and blatant personal antagonism just because of her gender. PS: Please stop abusing the xt example text template for talk page quotation; that's what tq talk quote is for.

My going to her talk page and marking it resolved (by her filing a now-closed AN/I case, which in fact did not find against me) and hiding the text there, and archiving the copy here off of my own talk page [ thanks for putting it back to make a point; I've refactored it back out] is enough, given that KimvdLinde will not concede, retract, compromise on, or in even address at all anything on her side of the dispute. In my view, KimvdLinde has far more to apologize for, including a lengthy "war" against me in multiple forums, with loud proclamations that I "have no good faith", etc., which are also interpretable as just short of personal attacks. Describing, how another editor's behavior is destroying the enjoyment of Wikipedia for me, is certainly harsh criticism, and even incivil, but it's not actually a personal attack per WP:NPA (nor was, , KimvdLinde's bad faith accusations and other rubbish). I already admitted at AN/I that I'd been incivil, and retracted the criticism I posted in public at WT:MOS, earlier. And I did that after all my offers of compromise were rebuffed, did so knowing that KimvdLinde would not honor my request to retract her own incivil posts about me (note: she has not). We own our own emotions. When KimvdLinde returns (I say "when" not "if", because she has a history of repeatedly "retiring" and coming back after a few days, weeks or months; there's no rule against calling a wikibreak "quitting", but I don't feel like playing make-believe, and she has in fact still been sporadically active, not to mention it's just an obvious appeal-to-emotion ploy to begin with), if she has indeed felt "any distress" about being sharply criticized, maybe she'll think twice before going on another personally-motivated, ad hominem rampage of incivility, character assassination, poll stacking, canvassing, WP:SSF of the bad faith variety, tendentiousness, filibustering, disruptive editing, and dispute-resolution sabotage. She knows how to archive her own talk page, if she finds the words discomforting.


 * I've retracted all that I'm going to retract, unless and until I see serious signs of contrition, compromise and attitude adjustment on KimvdLinde's part. You seem to be under the impression that I did not mean the things I wrote, that it was just a momentary lapse of temper, and that I haven't re-read it or thought it over. You'd be incorrect in those assumptions.  I have  "explain[ed] how [I] felt at the time of posting that kind of thing, and agree that [I] shouldn't have let those feelings get the better of [me]". I did this publicly at AN/I.  No further apology is forthcoming without some quid pro quo. KimvdLinde refuses to even retract the "not good faith" attack at WT:BIRDS. It would take her one minute or so.


 * The "sister/mother/wife/daughter" shot is cheap; I don't treat KimvdLinde as a frail, child-like flower simply because of her gender, and being female doesn't make someone even 1% more immune from criticism for disruptive behavior here. Re-re-reading what I said, if someone said that about someone I cared about, whatever their gender, my initial thoughts would probably be "wow, you must have really, really been working at pissing that person off; what'd you do, and why?"  I actually have a fair number of histrionic, troublemaking, judgmental and occasionally irrational family members, friends and acquaintances, of both sexes and all ages, and have learned through experience never to trust only their side of any dispute.  If someone said something like that about me, after an initial blush of anger and defensiveness, I'd have to ask myself the same questions. If you don't believe me, go ask . We had "words" like this several years ago, even more pointed ones, and longer and more detailed.  We both WP:SHUNned each other for a couple of months, and used some of that time to think about what the other had said, and now we not only get along, we're both also better editors for it, more mindful of how what we say in edit summaries and on talk pages can affect other people.  Just in case I've missed something, I've gone and re-read it a third time. It's a bit harsh, and I did mean it.  I didn't use any dirty words, I didn't tell KimvdLinde to leave, I didn't say she was stupid or evil, I described my own feelings and described her behaviors.  Maybe it  insulting to use a word like "psychodramatic" to characterize another editor's talk page patterns. But we have plenty of entire essays about this.  Try TfDing pages like that, then come talk to me about whether I've crossed a line in simply using the one word instead of euphemistic verbal spew like "characterized by an unreasonable level of emotional investment in argument-winning and in making everything personal on both sides, to the great detriment of the logic, cohesion, civility and bearableness of the discussion". WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have no requirement that one has to mince words and kiss asses.  WP:SPADE is a well-received and oft-cited essay.  I have read your civility essay, before you came here, and agree with most of it.  The dispute between KimvdLinde and I is far beyond that level now, and she's getting precisely zero more concessions of anything from me on this unless she takes the next step and meets me half-way.  The ball's in her court, not mine.


 * PPS: If you'd "fe[el] like...smashing a broken bottle into [someone's] face" over words like "psychodramatic" you may want to rethink your wikicareer as a civility essayist and mediator. That comes across as really creepy and irrational.


 * — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahh, sorry, I wasn't meaning to be creepy, or anything else like that; I really do have the best of intentions here. (But, in Real Life, some people would, in fact, get really, genuinely violent if a person were to say something along those lines to a friend or relative.)  But, regardless of all the background stuff, and your own frustration here (which I can appreciate), teh Arbs have just quite clearly stated: "Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process. "  Remember Kim may not have seen your request at AN/I (particularly now that the discussion is not only closed, but also archived).  I know how tempting it can be to get into name-calling, but it always causes more problems than it solves.  With regard to the "requirements" of WP:CIVIL (and regardless of how chaotically-applied that policy is, or how ambiguously worded), there is the following:
 * 1. Direct rudeness
 * (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
 * (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
 * (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
 * (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap");
 * Is there any way at all that you could see your way clear to apologising for the "insults and name-calling" bit? Pesky  (talk ) 10:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not need to apologize and .  I've received nothing but hostility and eventual (thanfully) silence for having even gone that far. The best course of action is to leave it alone and let the cut heal, not pick the scab.  I've already acknowledged, to KimvdLinde in public twice that I was incivil, and pointedly retracted a public post with a declaration that I was doing so because I'd been incivil. Why you feel the need to come quotating WP:CIVIL at me is unclear. I know what the page says, since I already addressed my breach of it.  Kim saw my request, because I made it multiple times in multiple forums over multiple days, and explicitly rejected it. I don't need ArbCom quoted at me, either.  I repeat, . WP:DEADHORSE, man.  I got nothing in return, despite having been publicly attacked by this user without provocation several times, and including in a WP:DRN case that she blatantly abused as a platform for aggression instead of resolution.  Why are you picking other people's scabs?  Since you want to throw mentions of assault in for no reason (and did it again, after I told you it was creepy!), that's also the kind of behavior that in real life would get you popped in the nose, don't you think?


 * Sorry again, I should have put this bit earlier (but Real Life is troublesome for me, too!) I'm not sure what the general view is on this, but I have a feeling that editing another person;s talk page to hide from view your own comments which (per policy, as opposed to per essay) could reasonably be construed to be a personal attack isn't generally considered to be OK. It's a bit like "destroying evidence" when you hide it from view; on your own talk page, I guess that's all right,  but not on someone else's talk page.  Adding:  I think that the collapse template interferes with page preview in some way (not sure if that's a reported bug), hence the multiple tweaky edits here. Sorry!  Pesky  (talk ) 10:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not be silly. See WP:REFACTOR. And it's not  at all, just collapsed. It's like a form of struck-out text, but much, much easier to read if you are intent on reading it. It's also in the same form as the "This debate is closed, do not edit it" templates, because . Further debate about it by passers-by on her talk page is simply going to irritate me, remind KimvdLinde why she left, protract an unfruitful discussion, involve random editors in other people's dirty laundry, and raise the undead spectre of an issue that has already resolved itself at AN/I satisfactorily. See again WP:DEADHORSE and also WP:Ignore all drama. Stop trying to generate more of it, please. Actually, per WP:REFACTOR you, me, anyone would be free to completely  the entire talk page section if your view that it actually constitutes as personal attack were true: "Pruning text – should only be done...with good cause under policy: * Removing, striking or hiding personal attacks ..." — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  10:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm really trying to understand what your obejction is to striking-through (as opposed to collapsing) your comments on Kim's talk page, as well as in the other places in which you've done so (for which, thanks, that was a good move). Please do be assured that I have the best of intentions here; I'm not trying to wind you up, and I do sincerely apologise if I'm irritating you, as well.  I've asked a couple of more experienced editors than myself for their input and advice on this one, as I really am unsure as to the extent that en editor can refactor another editor's talk page.  I hope that you can understand my concerns (and please don't bite me, I'm fragile, lol!)  I think that, although you have stricken those comments elsewhere, the fact that they are still unstricken (even though hidden) on Kim's talk page is likely to leave her feeling that your perceived-attack still stands, even though it's been removed from more-public areas.  Do you see clearly what I'm trying to explain, here?  If not, then the fault lies with me for failing to explain sufficiently clearly.  I'm aware that you consider this to be a dead horse scenario, but I'm fairly sure that, from Kim's point of view, the horse is far from dead, and the situation is far from resolved.  As regards picking other people's scabs, if the sore really is healing then I take your point completely; however, if it's not healing, but festering, underneath that scab, then a return visit to theatre to lance and drain the abscess, instead of leaving it to fester, may not be a bad move.  Please take it as read that I'm trying to act in the very best of good faith here, and try to work out a way in which  neither of you feels driven into exile by the other one.  Best,  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm really trying to understand" why you are browbeating me about, in defense of a wiki-retired user who did not ask anyone to come to her rescue by badgering me, and objecting to collapsing of the "offensive" material instead of strike-through, not to mention copy-pasting the "offending" material here again, so that I had to refactor it out. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."  No, I cannot understand your concerns. They are not your concerns. They  my and KimvdLinde's concerns, and for a while they were ANI/I concerns, and now they are no longer concerns.  Thanks so much for WP:CANVASSING other random parties get involved.  If you don't know WP:REFACTOR then please stop telling me I'm doing it wrong.  I am not going to strike the comments. I made them, they exist, I meant them, I was pilloried for it at AN/I, admitted my fault, and have boxed them so they aren't so much of a big public spectacle (keep in mind that many editors agree with what I said, even if they think I said it incivilly; leaving the comments visible but struck out would still engender thoughts Kim would not appreciate). KimvdLinde has already gotten far more apology, concession and retraction that was deserved, and has responded with none of her own.  You are not psychic and do not have psychic powers, so you don't know how and to what extent Kim feels about anything. Read Kim's userpage. She has left for far more grandiose reasons than an argument with me. She wants to set up a form of external WP content veracity oversight system, starting with birds and (see two threads at WT:BIRDS) already has a website called something like Birdipedia "to build a much better encyclopedia than we ever could here".  Kim has way bigger fish to fry (practically or impractically) than any argument already 10 days stale.  If she feels some issue is "far from resolved", again, the ball's in her court now. It's her turn to do something conciliatory. I did not drive Kim into exile. See WP:DIVA and GoodBye; it's a common argument to pity debate tactic to leave in a huff for a while, and we know for a fact that Kim's focusing on an extra-wiki project; since she's posted a big manifesto about it on her own page and "come join me" recruitments on the birds page. Please just drop it and stop bringing drama to my doorstep, especially since none of this involves you directly.  I'm trying to get productive things done. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  17:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say about this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent arbitrary move and deletion activity of Alan Liefting
{{Resolved|1=Any further discussion of this belongs at User talk:Alan Liefting. Hi SMcCandlish--

I notice you have posted a protest on his talkpage concerning Liefting's recent peremptory and arbitrary moves. Please also see the further discussion at Talk:Glossary of music, including my most recent post at or near the bottom. Perhaps you may have a suggestion for addressing this Wikipedia-wide problem. Thanks for any help you may be able to provide. (Of course you may agree with some of his arguments, but presumably not with his methods.) Milkunderwood (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm undoing some of his moves as time permits. I'm also adding {{tl|R from short name}} to the shorter pages after the redirect code. This is both correct usage of the template and has the side effect of preventing him from reverting the restoration of the original article title without going through WP:RM or some other process. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  12:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See my note on his talkpage User talk:Alan Liefting Milkunderwood (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Those glossary moves
Hello, I recently became aware of a User:Alan Liefting's glossary moves, because he moved the article that I started some years ago, glossary of sumo terms. I noticed this, and wish he had consulted with us first, even though he did at least make a redirect to keep links working. The criteria he has used to defend his moves are obfuscating, because he doesn't even link to the Glossary:MOS which clearly states that the obtaining title is "glossary of [subject] terms". As out of place as his methods are, he does bring up a point, no? A glossary is by definition a list of terms. I also saw another wiki usage guide that said plurals should be avoided in titles. This would seem to suggest a few alternatives: "Glossary of [subject]" sounds a bit strange but "[Subject] glossary" doesn't. Or an alternative that avoids the plural: "Glossary of [subject] terminology". I would guess you and yours have considered such options. In many cases when a convention is decided upon, the changes are instituted by users pretty quickly across wikipedia by enthusiastic users. I would suppose in this case that it is more controversial and looks more like meddling if you are asking groups to change an entire article titling convention whenever "terms" has already been the one that most groups have settled on. I am not saying "glossary of [subject] terms" is untenable as it is certainly descriptive enough, but I am curious what considerations have been given independent of the user above's actions. Ah, if it's not too much trouble, I would prefer if you replied on my page, or I may forget to come back here, thanks in advance. FourTildes (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is something that should be discussed in an RfC at WT:MOSGLOSS. I've reverted as much of Liefting's "do everything my way" renames as possible to level the playing field again. I'll post this at your talk page too. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, so I assume from your reply that he has never attempted to debate these issues at the links you gave me? Hmmm... FourTildes (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can determine, he's never proposed his changes anywhere. See his own talk page. It consists of nothing but angry responses to disruptive hundreds-at-a-time moves, and him essentially ignoring the complaints. He's convinced he's Righteous and Entitled, or something. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  02:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Page move
I'm not sure I agree with your move from "botanical" to "botany" terms. There's a subtle but important difference in meaning between the two, and I would much rather see this sort of a move discussed. Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. At the article talk page? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the right place. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent arbitrary move and deletion activity of Alan Liefting
{{Resolved|1=Any further discussion of this belongs at User talk:Alan Liefting. Hi SMcCandlish--

I notice you have posted a protest on his talkpage concerning Liefting's recent peremptory and arbitrary moves. Please also see the further discussion at Talk:Glossary of music, including my most recent post at or near the bottom. Perhaps you may have a suggestion for addressing this Wikipedia-wide problem. Thanks for any help you may be able to provide. (Of course you may agree with some of his arguments, but presumably not with his methods.) Milkunderwood (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm undoing some of his moves as time permits. I'm also adding {{tl|R from short name}} to the shorter pages after the redirect code. This is both correct usage of the template and has the side effect of preventing him from reverting the restoration of the original article title without going through WP:RM or some other process. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  12:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See my note on his talkpage User talk:Alan Liefting Milkunderwood (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Those glossary moves
Hello, I recently became aware of a User:Alan Liefting's glossary moves, because he moved the article that I started some years ago, glossary of sumo terms. I noticed this, and wish he had consulted with us first, even though he did at least make a redirect to keep links working. The criteria he has used to defend his moves are obfuscating, because he doesn't even link to the Glossary:MOS which clearly states that the obtaining title is "glossary of [subject] terms". As out of place as his methods are, he does bring up a point, no? A glossary is by definition a list of terms. I also saw another wiki usage guide that said plurals should be avoided in titles. This would seem to suggest a few alternatives: "Glossary of [subject]" sounds a bit strange but "[Subject] glossary" doesn't. Or an alternative that avoids the plural: "Glossary of [subject] terminology". I would guess you and yours have considered such options. In many cases when a convention is decided upon, the changes are instituted by users pretty quickly across wikipedia by enthusiastic users. I would suppose in this case that it is more controversial and looks more like meddling if you are asking groups to change an entire article titling convention whenever "terms" has already been the one that most groups have settled on. I am not saying "glossary of [subject] terms" is untenable as it is certainly descriptive enough, but I am curious what considerations have been given independent of the user above's actions. Ah, if it's not too much trouble, I would prefer if you replied on my page, or I may forget to come back here, thanks in advance. FourTildes (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is something that should be discussed in an RfC at WT:MOSGLOSS. I've reverted as much of Liefting's "do everything my way" renames as possible to level the playing field again. I'll post this at your talk page too. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, so I assume from your reply that he has never attempted to debate these issues at the links you gave me? Hmmm... FourTildes (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can determine, he's never proposed his changes anywhere. See his own talk page. It consists of nothing but angry responses to disruptive hundreds-at-a-time moves, and him essentially ignoring the complaints. He's convinced he's Righteous and Entitled, or something. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  02:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Page move
I'm not sure I agree with your move from "botanical" to "botany" terms. There's a subtle but important difference in meaning between the two, and I would much rather see this sort of a move discussed. Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. At the article talk page? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the right place. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of common names (just a passing comment)
While writing a reply to you elsewhere, I happened to look at Murinae. All the English names here are capitalized (which may be ok as it's a list) but equally all the links I followed (about 20 I guess) have capitalized titles. Nothing follows from this either way with regard to policy; it's just an observation. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of cases like this. It's the sort of mess (and misleading WP:false consensus) to be expected when the guidelines have all been contradicting each other, and certain parties have been going on massive capitalization sprees through thousands of articles. WP:MAMMALS has not advised capitalization of common names, and there is actually an off-wiki in zoological literature, yet look at the inconsistent mess in categories like Category:Mammals of Africa:
 * Greater spot-nosed monkey
 * Greater White-toothed Shrew
 * Green monkey
 * Grévy's Zebra
 * Grey Rhebok
 * Grey-cheeked mangabey
 * Grey-faced Sengi
 * It's farcical and embarrassing. This kind of chaos is what I'm aiming to undo. If we end up with a bunch of bird and winged insect and some plant articles capitalized (for a while or forever) based on a handful of will-not-budge wikiprojects insisting on it, that's workable. Random "capitalize whatever the hell you want, or don't" pandemonium isn't. Anyway, the current prevalence of capitalization in articles on any particular family of organisms isn't evidentiary of anything, other than the effectiveness of WP:AWB to force capitalization on thousands of articles at once. It's actually also evidentiary of when the articles were created, since various pages like WP:MOSCAPS, WP:FNAME, WP:TOL, etc. have at one time or another, mostly in the mid-oughts, advocated for either capitalization as a standard or for wikiprojects making up their own rules as if WP:OWN didn't exist, with some some members of a pro-caps project actively pushing caps on other projects for several years. Over many, many objections, culminating in cries of "enough!" throughout 2007, and MOS adopting an anti-caps default in early 2008 after extensive debates all over the place. Re: "a reply to you elsewhere", I may need a pointer to it; my attention is thinly spread again now that the WT:MOS debate has quieted. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe or not, I really wasn't making a point, only noting my surprise that capitalization was so prevalent in mammal articles, which I didn't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, and I wasn't meaning to sound like I'm being argumentative with you about it; rather I'm expressing consternation at the mess you've stumbled onto. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  15:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also realized very recently, while doing some work on Yucca and its species, that there's a quite common "third style" used in articles, namely to use sentence case style in running text for English names, i.e. always capitalize the first word in an English name but not the rest (unless proper names). I think people do this particularly when they are writing about species where a sizable proportion have proper names as the first element. If you've written e.g. "Similar species include Torrey yucca, Yucatan yucca, Great Plains yucca, Adam's needle, Spanish dagger, Big Bend yucca, Texas yucca", then it seems odd to continue "spoonleaf yucca, soaptree yucca and flaccid leaf yucca" (all actual names in the Yucca article). The effect is to make the few yucca species with English names not starting with a capital letter look less important. It makes me wonder whether the lower-case style shouldn't be more consistent, i.e. decapitalize every part of the name. One of my objections to decapitalizing 'official' names is precisely that there's no reliable source for how to determine what is regarded as a proper name and so left capitalized. However, I guess total decapitalization would be too radical for everyone else, although I think it does actually remove one of the valid objections to the uniform use of this style.
 * As to where I left a comment, um... I find it hard to remember too. I think it was about merging stuff from fauna naming into the MOS. Anyway, you are definitely right about lang-en (I've left a comment saying so), however wrong you may be about other things! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I've also seen that "third style"; it frequently also simply happens by virtue of the fact that people are used to sentence-casing WP article names, e.g. "I was editing Albinism the other day and...", or .  I'm vastly in favor of decapitalizing all of the name parts, always, except where they are proper nouns (i.e. "spanish dagger" wouldn't be acceptable to very many, I don't think).  I'm not sure I've seen many if any cases where it's indeterminate what is or isn't a proper name in a species common name. If/when this arises, I'd go with lower case; burden of proof should be on anyone asserting something that looks like misc. words is actually a proper name.  I did find your comments on the WP:FAUNA -> MOS:LIFE merge stuff. Template:Lang-en: I think A. di M. is right that it should be TfD'd. May do it myself. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  07:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As to where I left a comment, um... I find it hard to remember too. I think it was about merging stuff from fauna naming into the MOS. Anyway, you are definitely right about lang-en (I've left a comment saying so), however wrong you may be about other things! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I've also seen that "third style"; it frequently also simply happens by virtue of the fact that people are used to sentence-casing WP article names, e.g. "I was editing Albinism the other day and...", or .  I'm vastly in favor of decapitalizing all of the name parts, always, except where they are proper nouns (i.e. "spanish dagger" wouldn't be acceptable to very many, I don't think).  I'm not sure I've seen many if any cases where it's indeterminate what is or isn't a proper name in a species common name. If/when this arises, I'd go with lower case; burden of proof should be on anyone asserting something that looks like misc. words is actually a proper name.  I did find your comments on the WP:FAUNA -> MOS:LIFE merge stuff. Template:Lang-en: I think A. di M. is right that it should be TfD'd. May do it myself. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  07:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)