text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 19

This archived discussion on quotation marks continues from Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_18.

No consensus for straight quotes continued

 * You can enter curly quotes very easily by clicking on the curly quotes in the “Insert:” box on the edit page, or by copying and pasting. This isn’t exactly rocket science.
 * Yes it is ugly, but nothing about the proposed guideline forces anybody to do anything. If you put in straight quotes, someone else for whom it is easy can change them to curly quotes. You're not obligated to do anything. That’s the beauty of the wiki system. Nohat 01:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Two things occur to me. First, I really can't tell the difference between the two unless I edit the article, since in the default font for Wikipedia curly quotes look exactly like straight quotes. We might want to consider why we're even bothering if most visitors aren't going to even see the difference.
 * Second, it's very true that special characters have long been used in articles, but mostly they are in contexts where it is obvious what is missing if they don't show up. (For example, phonetic symbols. Half the time I can't see them properly and it's annoying, but they are always labeled so that I can tell what it is that's not showing up and it doesn't interrupt the article.) If quotes don't show up, though, you've got missing character boxes all over the place. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sarah. We don't need to introduce those curly quotes. No Account 01:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I find curly quotes a pain in the butt for no discernable gain. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't care much either way as long as nobody complains when they get straight quotes from my edits. However, I'd like to point out this table which shows what people in other countries consider "typographically correct": de:Anf%C3%BChrungszeichen. I'm afraid we may end up with all kinds of interesting quote characters in the English WP. In case your browser doesn't render it: Dutch, German, and English are all similar but each is different. French, Italian, Danish and others use a different type of quotes, but not all of them use them the same way. Rl 07:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The page Quotation mark has used curlies for a long time, long before we switched to UTF-8. That's a good page for experimentation. I understand that many users don't see a difference between straights and curlies on their screen. Indeed, I am quite sure that Windows in the default font and magnification renders exactly the same bitmap. However, rest assured that the are operating systems (Mac OS X, for example) with other font rendering engines that handle them differently. Or print it. Anyway, I don't think the argument They look the same on my screen holds much water. Not everybody uses Wikipedia in the same way.

Again, the are lots of voice about "bother" or "extra work" or "pain in the butt". I don't understand. If you don't care about curlies then by all means use straight quotes. How can the absence of a prohibition make things more difficult? We are not trying to enforce a No straight quotes policy. We are trying to remove a rule that annoys lots of typographically informed people mightily. If you don't care, then by all means continue to not care.

User:RI makes a good point. The MOS ought to point out that English Wikipedia uses English quotation marks, either straight or curly (my proposal does that), and might want to explicitly prohibit angle quotation marks, Swedish quotation marks, German "low sixes", or quotation dashes. I would support such a rule. Arbor 08:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Tech issues: Back to square one
Everybody who hasn't seen this thread before, please start reading at the beginning, which is May 9, and archived under Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Quotation marks and apostrophes). (For example, there is a test page that User:DESiegel was looking for.)

Anticipating the switch to UTF-8, User:Susvolans suggested to drop the curlies verboten rule, because it was based (to a large extent) on a technical problem that would be obsolete when English Wikipedia performed the switch. Many arguments pro et contra were given on that thread, and I haven't seen anobody reach a conclusion different from no consensus. What remains is to decide what to do with that conclusion. I was under the assumption that this observation meant that the rule needs to go, since the mission statement of WP:MOS is "It illustrates standards or conduct that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases". That (and wiki philosophy) closes the case, but we can discuss this. The (grotesque) idea that a consensus statement remains consensus until there is consensus to change it is a Wiki issue that seems to run counter to how we do the rest of Wikipedia, and would benefit from a broader discussion. It has not much to do with curlies.

Anyway the opposition repeats a number of claims that are misunderstandings or fiction. I have replied to them earlier, but let me waste some cyberspace commenting on the curlies break things issue again.

For some reason we now, after three months and a successful migration to Unicode, are back at discussing encoding issues, because of four (4) completely trivial characters. I am annoyed by that discussion, so let me spend some time trying to counter it.

There seems to be a persistent opinion in the curlies verboten camp that "curlies break things." Well, I was pretty aggressive in hunting down such statements in the first two months, asking each and every editor who made such claim to back them up with a concrete example. Nobody has done so. I went so far as to set up a number of test pages on the UTF-8 test wiki in June (before Wikipedia itself switched) to allow skeptics to construct such an example. Nobody replied. The invitation is still open—give me a browser, OS, and possibly an external editor that works with Wikipedia (among other things, it needs to be sufficienlty modern to show very nontrivial CSS, and also needs to honor the HTTP encoding header) but fails with curlies. I'd be really happy to see this setup. Really. We need to fix something very subtle in that case, so we better get it out into the open.

However, I have come to believe that this claim is ficticious. There are thousands and thousand of Unicode characters in use on Wikipedia, including English Wikipedia. I cannot even imagine why the four curlies should be more difficult. (Indeed, they are far less difficult, being included in pretty much every typeface ever designed.)

But the strongest argument in favour of curlies don't cause problems is not the absence of examples to the contrary. Instead, it is the positive evidence of hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia pages in other languages that use curly quotes (and angle quotes and low-nine quotes and whatnot) each and every day without any reported problems I know of. That's very strong evidence in favour of curlies don't cause problems. On the other hand we have User:Jonathunder claiming: "Smart quotes break things and make it harder for other editors. I wish people would understand that".

User:DESiegel is a lot more help: "I have seen curly quotes disply as boxes or question marks in mar browser, and i am using IE 6.0.2900, not an unusual setup." I hope you haven't see that on Wikipedia, otherwise inform the tech-wizards with all speed. It sounds as if you have looked at a page that submitted a wrong HTTP header. For example, somebody wrote a page on a Mac (say) and saved it in the native Mac encoding. However, his or her web server sends the page in isolatin1 or in UTF-8. Your browser correctly tries to show the page in whatever encoding the page claims to be in. But it was never saved that way. Your browser works according to spec, the web designer (or the monkey managing his web server) fouled up. There could be other explanations (we who fight this professionally can tell long stories about it). But none of this is relevant for Wikipedia. It is saved in UTF-8, its edit box sends and receives UTF-8, and your browser will understand the header informing it to switch to UTF-8. Trust me, it's going to work. The only possible problem is cutting and pasting, or using external editing software that isn't Unicode aware. But that's going to foul up lots of other characters as well—dashes, funny accents, interwiki links, etc.—so you would break the page anyway, curlies or not. Arbor 08:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * To summarize:
 * * No one has shown any evidence that curly quotes are broken in any commonly-used browser setup. Therefore the argument that the use of curlies will degrade the user experience for any significant group of users is invalid.
 * * No one is going to be forced to use curly quotes! This means that any arguments of the form “I think they're difficult to enter” or “I think they're a pain”, etc. are not relevant to the matter at hand.
 * * There is no consensus supporting maintenance of the current ban on curly quotes.
 * So how again do we justify the MoS continuing to forbid them? Nohat 08:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Very nice summary, Arbor. I've been away from this thread for a while; I'm astonished it's gone on for this long and (seemingly) gotten this contentious.

I think there's one small point which is responsible for much of the remaining contention: minority users of antique browsers.

Big fat disclaimer: up until just a few weeks ago, I myself was a "minority user of an antique browser" (Netscape 4.7). I sympathize entirely with minority users of antique browsers. I am not trying to disparage minority users of antique browsers. I know exactly how frustrating and demeaning it is to try to access what ought to have been a straightforward web page which ought to have been displayable using any browser at all (even an antique one), to have it display badly due to its seemingly gratuitous use of more modern web features, and to be told that no one's interested in supporting the antique browsers any more and that I really have to upgrade, whether I want to or not, whether it's even possible for me to upgrade or not. (In my case, for reasons I needn't go into here, for a long time it essentially wasn't possible for me to upgrade, until I took time out to do a fair amount of hard work.)

Anyway, if you are using an older browser that doesn't support full Unicode or any of the more exotic non-ASCII characters, you're resigned to the fact that you won't be able to see pages written in Chinese or Japanese or full of mathematics or other special symbols. But since your browser can display those two plain-ASCII characters ' and " just fine, it tends to stick in your craw more when you see boxes or question marks or raw uninterpreted UTF-8 gobbledegook where there are obviously supposed to be quotes or apostrophes. It's easy (for you) to hold the attitude that "I don't understand why people think curly quotes are so important; under the best of circumstances they don't look that different; and they look much worse for me, so I wish everyone would accommodate me and keep using straight quotes everywhere." I think this explains why the argument looms so large for just "the four curlies", as opposed to the "thousands and thousands of [other] Unicode characters in use on Wikipedia".

But then there are the people who honestly feel that curly quotes look significantly better -- and I'm a typography nurd who, even when my browser couldn't display them, strongly agreed with this view (and wished my browser could). So the question is, how do we best accommodate both sets of preferences?

There's one final piece to the argument. Clearly, there is no consensus. Clearly, some people need or prefer the straight quotes, and some people prefer the curlies. In the best of all possible worlds, articles could be stored using curly quotes and rendered for display, if necessary for people using older browsers, using straight quotes instead. But -- and this is the key point -- there's an obvious asymmetry here, because while curly quotes can be straightforwardly transliterated back to straight, the reverse isn't true: if an article is encoded using straight quotes, there's not enough information to reliably convert them to curlies for display by users who prefer them that way. (And of course Help:Special characters has always recognized this asymmetry: "Since using these characters maintains data integrity even on those machines that may not display them correctly, it should be considered safe to use these". [But it also concedes, "...unless proper display on old software is critical", which I guess is why we're still arguing.])

At any rate, this is why I must come down on the side of allowing (but not requiring) directional quotes, i.e. not requiring straight ones, i.e. not disallowing the curlies. Directional quotes contain significant information. The importance of retaining that information outweighs the nuisance caused to users of older browsers which can't display them, especially since (a) there are so few of those users, (b) they really do (hate to say this, but it's true) need to upgrade if at all possible, and (c) there's always the chance that Wikimedia could preemptively transliterate directional quotes back to straight on behalf of those browsers.

Steve Summit 16:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * As an update, 2726 has since been implemented. This converts characters into entities in the edit box on old browsers. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, and that's excellent news. There are of course two fairly different issues: (1) display of special characters for anyone who even views a page containing them, and (2) convenience and possible mangling when someone with a non-UTF-aware browser tries to edit a page containing them.  The bugfix affects (2) only, but this is the more urgent issue, since it concerns data fidelity and inadvertent breakage (and of course it transcends the straight-vs-curly debate, too).  So the "use of curly quotes might lead to data corruption during editing" argument ought to be closed, and we're left with (1). Steve Summit 16:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Lynx in Latin-1 mode automatically approximates characters when displaying, which covers (1). Macintosh IE, which is the most widely used browser not to have a Unicode-compliant editing box, is similar but handles curly quotes directly. Netscape 4 is now an extreme minority browser and the support issues with it are more severe than character sets, in particular I don’t think Wikipedia’s CSS works round it. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * In short, there are technical problems only for a minority that we neglect anyway. I will take this short (but edifying) debate as evidence that the problems anticipated by users like Jonathunder and DESiegel are fictitious. (I also note—not without unbecoming conceit—that my plea to produce concrete evidence for such problems has remained unanswered.) I will revert to the no consensus version, and ask others we re-revert me to be more specific about the technical problems that might be caused by using curlies. We would all very much like to solve them. Arbor 20:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

THE ANSWER I think we have the answer then. No matter what is decided, I will continue to use straight quotes. -- Ravenswood 16:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine. (Of course, you do realise that you are going to burn in Hell for that, and that every time you use a straight quote God kills a kitten.) However, I think we had "the answer" for some time now. That's not the issue anymore. Now we have an editing war on our hands over what seems to be a fundamental wikilosophy issue, and I can see no way of resolving it using the usual guidelines. Anybody with experience in conflict resolution who can tell us how to proceed? Arbor 15:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Can't we just have a vote? Choose one of the following: A) Use only straight quotes, B) Use only curly quotes, C) Use whatever suits your fancy, D) Don't even bother being consistant within a single article, E) I don't care, I'm going to do things my way. -- I vote 'E', by the way. -- Ravenswood 07:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus or not
Okay, we're on the brink of an all-out revert war here, so it's time to take a step back. I was about to scold the reverters for repeatedly removing the "no consensus" wording when in fact there is no consensus, but then I went back and counted, and it looks like there's more of a consensus than I'd been asserting there wasn't.

I've tallied, I think, everyone who has contributed to the "Quotation Marks - Why Straight? Change proposed" section on this talk page. ( I have not tallied the responses on Arbor's Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Quotation_marks_and_apostrophes%29 page yet.) Here are the results:

 * pro curly (4): Nicholas, Arbor, Steve Summit, Susvolans

 * maybe pro curly (5): Michael Z., Factitious, Christoph Päper, Tysto, dab

 * pro straight/anti curly (14): DavidH, Atlant, Jonathunder, jguk, DES, RI, Ravenswood, Antaeus_Feldspar, CDThieme, Satori, Woodstone, Aranel, No Account, Jmabel

 * no opinion (2): Mike, Aya_42

These "pro" and "anti" labels could be misleading, since of course not everyone who is "pro curly" is also "anti straight" (i.e. no one has been suggesting mandating curlies or banning straights). And some people (those I've categorized as "maybe pro curly") didn't necessarily say which they preferred, just that they were in favor of dropping the "only use straight quotes" rule.

But -- sorry, Arbor -- 4 is much less than 14, and even 4+5=9 is still significantly less than 14. (I thought I remembered one or two other people voicing vehement esthetic preferences somewhere in favor of curly quotes, but I don't see their comments now, and they wouldn't change the fact that there do seem to be substantially more people here who are arguing in favor of keeping the "use straight" rule.)

Many of the stated reasons, it's true, are weak or have been discredited:

 * 1. Curlies are hard to enter. [doesn't matter; they're not required]

 * 2. Curlies cause problems. [shouldn't matter; many of the problems are hearsay; few actual first-hand problems described; recent mediawiki bugfix reduces problems even further; problems no worse than for other special characters]

But there are also, I concede, some decent arguments:

 * 3. Curlies don't bring that much benefit for the amount of trouble they can cause; we should keep things simple.

 * 4. The curly problems are worse than for other special characters, because quotes (and apostrophes) appear in virtually all text.

(I'm not saying I agree with 3 and 4, just that they're not as easy to dismiss.)

I'll state for the record that I'm still not at all happy leaving the "always use straight quotes" rule standing, because it's in direct contradiction to Help:Special_characters. (Nor is it possible to change that help page to bring it into line with this MoS.) Furthermore, the rule is also progress-impeding, in that as long as it's in place, the work and experience building that might be necessary in order to relax it won't tend to happen; we could stay stuck in the 1960's flat-ASCII world forever.

Don't get me wrong: "Keep It Simple, Stupid" is a vitally important principle, one I often argue vociferously in favor of. But progress is important, too; the two must be balanced somehow. The extreme case of keeping things simple is Luddism; contrariwise, sometimes we have to do some initially-complicated work, or endure some transitory pain, in order to achieve long-term gain. (And yes, I do think that using directional quotes, if they were easy to enter and free of editing glitches and displayed nicely for everyone, would be progress.)

But for now, I'm going to drop my opposition to the "always use straight quotes" rule, as long as the note about contention and the reference to Help:Special_characters remain in place. I suggest we revisit the issue again in a year or two, because sooner or later I expect the tide will turn. (And the existing wording can probably still be improved.)

In the meantime, I have a couple of questions. Currently, there are many wikipedia articles which do use curly quotes. Would it be right or wrong to scold someone who -- in ignorance or defiance of the MoS -- continues to use curly quotes? Would it be right or wrong for someone to edit an article merely to change its curly quotes to straight ones? Would it be a good idea for someone (perhaps a bot) to ferret them all out and change them all?

Steve Summit (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your very reasonable assessment of the situation. However, I am concerned that your restriction of determining the consensus based only on the commentors in the "Quotation Marks - Why Straight? Change proposed" was not very accurate, and its results are subsequently possibly misleading. My opinion, for example, was excluded from your tally, even though I expressed it when the matter was first broached in May and also over the past few days.

 * Apologies. While tallying I had a fourth, partially-overlapping category "pro lack of consensus" containing Arbor, Steve Summit, Nohat, and Tysto, and when I omitted that category from the posted results I neglected to move your name to one of the others. Steve Summit (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course it may be true that Arbor has misrepresented the consensus, but I tend to agree that there is no longer (and perhaps there never was) a consensus to out-and-out ban curly quotes. When only a handful of editors are party to a dispute, any vocal dissent of nontrivial size constitutes a Lack of Consensus.

 * As for points 3 and 4 above, I admit that they are decent arguments; however, they make the assumption that curlies actually cause problems. As you state in point 2, this assertion remains conjecture, so until it can be shown that curlies actually cause problems for a nontrivial number of users, points 3 and 4 remain inapplicable. Ultimately, there are no good arguments for banning curly quotes.

 * What continues to baffle me is why the anti-curly contigent has been able to get away with the continual wholesale reverting of attempts to make the MoS reflect the fact that there is no consensus supporting this rule. The current situation where the curly ban remains but there is a small note indicating that the policy is disputed is only barely tolerable. The fundamental concept behind Wikipedia is to continually modify pages so they they better reflect the consensus. Wikipedia practice is to not revert when you disagree, but to try to engage in compromise and continually edit the verbiage so that all parties are in agreement. The fact that those who are opposed to curlies have continuously and fervently reverted without any attempt at compromise reflects poorly on their character. I hope that Ummit's gentlemanly display of willingness to compromise will be followed by others, and that future attempts to modify the wording to reflect consensus will be met with team spirit rather than curmudgeonly reversion. We are perfectly capable of continually editing pages in the main namespace to satisfy all reasonable parties; I see no reason why the same the same should not be true for the MoS. Nohat 07:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and made my own tally:

Maintain ban:
 * 1) DavidH
 * 2) Atlant
 * 3) Jonathunder
 * 4) Jguk
 * 5) DES
 * 6) Rl
 * 7) Ravenswood
 * 8) Antaeus_Feldspar
 * 9) CDThieme
 * 10) Woodstone
 * 11) Aranel
 * 12) No_Account
 * 13) Jmabel
 * 14) dab

Lift ban:
 * 1) Nicholas
 * 2) Michael Z.
 * 3) Factitious
 * 4) Steve Summit
 * 5) Christoph Päper
 * 6) Arbor
 * 7) Nohat
 * 8) Tysto
 * 9) Susvolans

No clear opinion:
 * 1) Satori
 * 2) Mike
 * 3) Aya_42

 * These numbers give 9–14 in favor of lifting the ban. 61% does not make any kind of consensus. There is quite clearly a Lack of Consensus. Nohat 08:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Maintain ban. It isn't just the quotes, but along with it comes apostrophes using the right curly single quote.  Of course, apostrophes don't have a direction to worry about.  They would also make it difficult for someone wanting to expand a contraction, when the browser's find on this page function won't find it if you enter the wrong one, and in my default configuration (and many other people's), I don't see the difference.  I don't even think curly quotes look better.  Most of the time they don't look worse either, except for that `really ugly' left single quote when people think that using the keyboard &#96; (`) with the keyboard apostrophe  &#39; (') is a good way to simulate curly quotes.  Gene Nygaard 09:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I am not sure tallying a lot of opinions that were not given in form of a vote is a valid way of counting. For example, I understood Ravenswood's comments in the sense that he wouldn't oppose lifting the ban, as long as he could continue to use straight quotes. That would put him in "my" camp. (I may be wrong about Ravenswood, but that's exactly my point: we cannot second-guess people's opinions in this way.) But I don't like voting about such things in the first place.

Another comment: Above, it says "Of course it may be true that Arbor has misrepresented the consensus". Let me just point out that I never have made any claims about "the consensus", so I would be surprised I have misrepresented anything. (If that was the case, I apologize, but re-reading my own comments I really cannot see if I was unclear about this—I am actually quite surprised that there are this many curly-fans in the first place!) Instead, my argument goes as follows: The old rule was based on a technological argument that is now obsolete. This means the rule needs to be re-evaluated, especially since it contradicts Help: Special characters, which prefers curlies for reasons of data integrity. Clearly there is now no consensus for the old rule, and I don't need to count to 50% to make that observation. I cannot understand the mindset behind editors who insist on having the MoS claim the opposite: that there should be a consensus to forbid curlies. There isn't even a consensus in Wikipedia's own guidelines. Wikipedia isn't a democracy in the first place, but I certainly don't need a majority to remove the false claim that there is consensus behind "straight quotes only". Arbor 16:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've not commented on this issue yet, though I've followed it. I'm not sure if I'm "enough" of an editor to affect this decision. I would forstall considering any lack of comments on either side as a lack of support. I'm strongly in favor of curly quotes, but I haven't chimed in yet because the pro-curly camp has argued so persuasively that I didn't feel I had anything to add. It is possible that those in the pro-straight camp feel the same way about their own champions.

From what I can see, each side has valid reasons for preferring their own quotes. Further, I have no difficulty imagining that there are large numbers of people on either side. I don't think we need an up-or-down vote to realize there is no concensus on standardizing on one quote or the other. My reading of the arguments still makes me think that there are no compelling arguments for forbidding either camp's preferred method.

The revert war on the MOS page is silly. Is there some higher authority than random Wiki users to whom we can appeal to avoid the revert war? Because we can't even seem to get a consensus on a consensus... Mikix 00:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

For all of those people arguing to allow curly quotes due to aesthetics: How does Wikipedia look better if some articles have curly quotes and some have straight quotes? Isn't consistency an aesthetic value as well? (Rant: The thing that annoys me most about the MoS is inconsistency. When I edit Wikipedia, I just want some guidance on how to make everything look the same ... I almost don't care what that guidance is. Some articles have american spelling, some have english; some articles use an extra comma in lists, some don't; some use metric, some use imperial; now you want some articles to use curly quotes and some not to?  Why have an MoS at all?) Chuck 15:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I know I haven't been involved with this discussion prior, but I agree with Chuck. Saying "you can use either" defeats the purpose of having a Manual of Style.  You can't use "no-one's going to be forced" as an argument for promotion, because that's not style anymore, that's disuniformity.  My personal opinion is that straight quotes should be used, but I defer this to my plea that we don't have a "guidance" to use either-or.  Nothing looks worse than scattered bits and pieces all over tha place.  (My short rant about style is on my user page) Neonumbers 11:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The need for consistency across Wikipedia is not a particularly persuasive argument. For example, we will never have style guidance saying that people should use the word "start" and avoid "begin" for consistency. Many things can (and should) be left to the writer's preference. There should be a demonstrable need for any guidance to appear in the MoS. Nohat 09:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First, if you don't care about consistency, then why are you bothering even posting in this section.

 * I am posting here because I am trying to combat rampant and unnecessary instruction creep.

 * Second, no one (except you) has discussed in any way creating MoS guidance where there is no demonstrable need. I (nor anyone else) has suggested that we just start coming up with random rules. We are talking about a single conflict (curly vs straight quotes) where there is a demonstrable need to create guidance. The evidence for demonstrable need is the existence of this discussion. Chuck 03:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If every time there was a discussion about whether something should be done in one way or another, the outcome was yet another policy page, then Wikipedia would have more policy than actual content. That kind of bureaucratic morass would grind productivity to a halt as everyone cited various and conflicting policies that support their contentions. The fewer policies and guidelines there are, the easier it will be for people to create content and quit debating stylistic details. Nohat 20:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, I disagree: "...demonstrable need to create guidance" is false. My very first contribution to this debate was a suggestion so simply remove any mention of quotes in the MOS. I hate instruction creep, so I would just remove the current section. This will work, demonstrably: I cannot find any mention of quotation mark style in either French or German Wikipedia (at least when I looked, back in May). Yet both work and look fine, and (as far as I can see) this debate has never been an issue. (As before: If you can find evidence in FR or GE to the contrary, please tell me. I could be simply wrong—stranger things have happened.) So if you ask me, after the UTF-8 switch all straight-vs-curly talk should just be removed from WP:MOS, just as it is going to be removed from help:Special characters. There certainly is the opposite of a demonstrable need for a guideline. Arbor 07:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Arbor. There is no demonstrable need for a rule here, as exemplified by the French and German Wikipedias which get along just fine without one. Both straight and curly quotes have their own advantages and disadvantages. The guideline that articles should be internally consistent still stands, but at this time, since neither straight nor curly quotes have the clear consensus of support so there is no valid justification to prefer one or the other in the MoS. Nohat 20:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Do remember that the English Wikipedia is miles ahead of the French and German ones in terms of development.
 * Now, from what I gather, if we take mandate straight vs. mandate curly, there is consensus for straight; if we take maintain ban vs. lift ban there is not. So those who wish the ban be lifted use the lack of consensus as an argument for their minority side.  The thing is, that's not a compromise between the two sides, that's just their side — not that I wish for a compromise, nor that I consider this paragraph of argument.
 * Anyway, a lack of consistency with these would be very very obvious. There was a small debate a while back over whether or not numbers from 11 to 99 should be spelt out "eleven" to "ninety-nine"; but that's not that obvious, so even though I'd like a guideline on it, without one I could live.  Consistency is a perfectly valid justification for preference.  If it wasn't, the length of this manual would be halved and all the supplementary manuals deleted.
 * The consequences of a mixture of straights and curlies are not insignificant. It is exactly this sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look unrespectable, as if it was written by about twenty teams, not by one. Neonumbers 11:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Neo, I appreciate your effort of providing a summary of the status quo, but you are hardly being fair: Now, from what I gather, if we take mandate straight vs. mandate curly, there is consensus for straight Absolutely not. I would much prefer a curlies-only Wikipedia, just like French and German are, just like the blogosphere is, and just like every printed encyclopedia (or other publication) is. I just happen to think it's a hopeless case on EN without Mediawiki support, which is why I am not pressing that angle. There is also no consensus for straights in Wikipedia's own documentation, see help: Special characters, and the historical consensus for straights on this page was based on a now obsolete technical difficulty.
 * Look, if I was in a more confrontational mood, I could easily read help:Special characters as prescribing the use of curly quotes “to maintain data integrity”, and of WP:MOS to basically agree, but to stick with straights due to technical reasons in the latin-1 days. Therefore, the argument would go, the change to UTF-8 incurs, automatically, a switch to curlies, and Wikipedia-EN would finally join the rest of the Internet to not look like a typewriter. (It's not 1993 anymore, the slogan goes.) No debate—straights are out. Good riddance. This (somewhat rude) approach would have established the symmetric situation you describe between a mandate straights versus mandate curlies camp, and a compromise proposal (allow both, stay consistent with the page) would have been the likely outcome. I just don't happen to be a big fan of such behaviour, and thought the lifting of the no curlies ban would have been less dramatic, comparable to what happened with em and en-dashes when these became feasible. I had no idea people would actually want to forbid others to (1) use typographically correct punctuation and (2) follow help:Special characters. I still don't quite believe it. Arbor 13:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I just ran across this little tempest. I think the pro-curly crew need to remember that there are a lot of people out here who aren't using uSoft Word, or another editor that makes it easy to enter them. Also, they are not only a pain in the a%% to enter, but they are obnoxious in edit boxes as well - you see #1234's or something all over the place. (I do cut-n-paste for major edits, but not for medium or small ones, so this is a real issue - and it applied to stuff other people write too, so a "let each use what they want" argument doesn't float for me.)
 * If you want Wikipedia to look "professional", ask the developers to add code to render them correctly (with a suitable escape to handle the tricky cases), and stop making the rest of us miserable.
 * Further more, I concur with those who saw that before we can get rid of the old rule (use straight-only), we need a consensus to change it, and we definitely do not have a consensus to change it. Now can we please remove the "disputed" tag from the article? It's been discussed to death, and it's not flying. Noel (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Noel, thank you for your comments. (1) Could you explain to me how the possibility of using curlies makes it harder to continue to use straights? I seem to be too stubborn to understand the problem. Nobody is forced to used curlies, so why am I making everybody miserable? (2) Curlies will not be presented as HTML entities (the obnoxious #1234s, as you call them). The appear in the edit box just as any other character: “”‘’. (Try it.) This is a process that all entities on WP-EN are undergoing since the switch to UTF-8 and may take some time, so if you look really hard you may still find some entities. (3) Does the “conservative” argument apply to help:Special characters as well? For remember that WP currently includes conflicting guidelines for how to handle curlies. WP:MOS bans them, help:Special characters prefers them. Would you think the removal of the disputed tag is a fair representation of the current state of the debate? Arbor 07:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay I’m new to the discussion here, but I’d like to throw in some academia here. First off, the term ‘straight quotes’ is a misnomer. In English there is only ‘quotation mark’, and by definition is curly. From the Oxford English Dictionary entry on quote: “ 7. attrib. and Comb., as (sense 3b) quotation-capping (see CAP v.1 5), -monger; (sense 2b) -justifier, -quadrat; quotation-marks, signs used in writing or printing to mark the beginning and end of a quotation; in English, single or double inverted commas (see COMMA 4) and apostrophes are employed”. You’ll note that it specifically mentions inverted commas. Now, if Wikipedia has decided to use a would-be ‘straight comma’, then yes, these ‘straight quotes’ get my vote. However, as I believe we can all agree that a properly written/typed/drawn comma does indeed have a curvature, then there shouldn’t be an issue here: standard directional quotation marks should be just that: standard. As well, I should mention that at my university, I’ve had classes in which a mixing up the uses for the curly and ‘straight’ quotation mark result in an automatic F. The directional variant is a quotation mark, used to quote materials, title poems, isolate words, abbreviate, &c, whilst the ‘straight’ variant is reserved for word repetition betwixt two lines (the ‘ditto mark’). Therefore, since the technology exists to handle such marks, we should be utilising it, rather than ignoring it. Otherwise why did WP bother using anything but straight ASCII (pun perhaps intended)? Matthew Stuckwisch 6:45, 12 September 2005, (CST)
 * I personally prefer to use and read straight quotation marks. Many may argue that it helps differentiate where the quotation started and ended; however, if you actually read what is written then you will immediately know where the quotation starts and ends. Convenience of use should be the utmost priority. I have always found straight quotation marks easier to type. I see no need to go out of the way to make quotation marks curly for no apparent benefit when the time could be spent adding information. megamanXplosion 04:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * MegamanXplosion, your personal preferences notwithstanding, could you make it clear whether you would want to forbid others from using curlies? Usually, Wikipedia allows people who care about good grammar, proper dashes, good photography, nice tables, &c to apply their skills, and few other editors feel that this attention to whimsical details prevents them from "adding information". So the question is not whether you care about such things (you don't, that's fine) but whether you would prevent others from caring, and for what reason. Or did you simply misunderstand the proposal? Nobody is forcing or even asking you to abandon your straight quotes. Arbor 07:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Occam's Razor
Perhaps we should take a lesson from Occam's Razor and Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. I really couldn't care less about this frivilous matter, as it makes no difference. The font doesn't distinguish between the two styles. Since the proper special characters are supposed to be used anyway, this rule simply pluralizes the rule. I remember when people got behind causes that mattered. glocks out 17:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Yamagata Masakage

Yamagata Masakage (山県 昌景) also known as Obu Masakage was a Japanese samurai warrior of the Sengoku period. He is known as one of the "Twenty-Four Generals of Takeda Shingen". He was famous for his red armour and skill in battle, and was a personal friend of Takeda Shingen. He was the younger brother of Obu Toramasa, who was also a retainer of Shingen, leading the famous "red fire unit" (derived from Shingen's slogan Fūrinkazan).

Military legacy
Masakage was a fierce warrior who fought in many battles and was given a fief in Shinano. He was present at the Battle of Mimasetoge in 1569 and captured Yoshida Castle, a Tokugawa possession, during the Mikatagahara Campaign (1572–73).

He was present for the following Battle of Mikatagahara. His last campaign was in the ill-fated Battle of Nagashino in 1575, in which he tried to persuade Katsuyori to honorably withdraw.

Ii Naomasa of the Tokugawa clan gained the surviving retainers of the Takeda clan and more widely implemented the ideas of "Masakage's red-colored army," having several units of elite samurai in blood-red armor, to inflict fear and demoralization on enemy troops.

Personal life
After his brother Obu Masatora committed Seppuku as a cover for Takeda Yoshinobu's failed rebellion, Masakage changed his family name to Yamagata (He used the name Obu Masakage at first).

In popular culture
Yamagata is one of the main characters in Akira Kurosawa's epic film Kagemusha.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Yamagata Masakage


text:
Monster Truck Madness

Monster Truck Madness is a racing video game developed by Terminal Reality and published by Microsoft. It was released in North America on September 9, 1996. The game has twelve monster trucks and tasks the player with beating computer opponents. Checkpoints, multiple hidden shortcuts, and interactable objects commonly appear in the tracks. In the garage, the player modifies the truck to account for terrain surfaces. Online multiplayer is accessed with a modem, a local area network (LAN), or TCP/IP.

Terminal Reality designed Monster Truck Madness to accurately simulate monster truck events and replicate the titular off-road vehicles. The developer hired announcer Armey Armstrong to perform sports commentary. Monster Truck Madness received a massive following, and video game publications generally praised its gameplay, graphics, and physics. It is the first entry in Microsoft's Madness series of racing titles, which included Motocross Madness and Midtown Madness. Monster Truck Madness was followed by a sequel, Monster Truck Madness 2. Terminal Reality developed another off-road truck racing game, 4x4 Evo.

Gameplay
Monster Truck Madness offers twelve monster trucks, including Bigfoot, Grave Digger and Snake Bite, and tasks the player with beating computer opponents in four single-player modes: Drag, Circuit, Rally, and Tournament. Drag focuses on traditional monster truck events set in arena and stadium venues like BC Place  and Tacoma Dome;  the player qualifies to participate in knockout races that involve jumping over rows of cars. Circuit has five short race tracks, and Rally has long exotic tracks themed after Arizona,  the highlands,  and the Yucatán. In Tournament, the player participates in a custom series of events with computer opponents. Checkpoints, multiple hidden shortcuts (like a broken bridge), and objects (such as cacti, road signs, and fences) commonly appear in the tracks. The finder directs the truck towards the checkpoint and can call the helicopter to put the truck back on the road.

In the garage, the player modifies the truck's tires, suspension, and acceleration-to-speed ratio to account for terrain surfaces such as mud and grass. The player can compete in multiplayer using DirectPlay and with a modem, LAN, or TCP/IP. The game includes multiple camera angles like blimp and cockpit, as well as the ability to watch and save replays of the events.

Development and release
American video game studio Terminal Reality, Inc. (TRI) developed a 1995 alien-themed combat flight simulation game named Terminal Velocity. It was published by game distributor 3D Realms for MS-DOS as three episodes, with the first of them being offered as shareware. The studio subsequently started to make games for software publisher Microsoft, the first two being Fury³ and Hellbender. Both products received mixed reviews for their similarities to Terminal Velocity and Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger. Terminal Reality created an unreleased 1995 MS-DOS product titled Heavy Metal Truck (codenamed Metal Crush), but in 1996 they renamed it to Monster Truck Madness and developed it for Windows 95.

They designed it to accurately simulate monster truck events such as drag tracks and enclosed circuit races, and replicate the titular off-road vehicles on land, when jumping, and during collisions. The trucks' sound effects were recorded and digitized from such races. The game's twelve monster trucks were used under license from companies like Bigfoot 4×4, Inc., the owner of Bigfoot and Snake Bite. The developer hired announcer Armey Armstrong to perform sports commentary, resulting in lines such as "Bigfoot is doing it in the air!" and "when it's going your way, it's going your way".

On May 16, the game was displayed at the 1996 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), and Microsoft announced its autumn release date. It was released in North America during the August 31-September 9 period. Monster Truck Madness was one of the first titles to provide force feedback and Direct3D support and required a video card for smooth, quickly processed graphics. It even included an online manual and full motion videos (FMVs) of monster truck events. TRI distributed through its website a freely downloadable program titled Track Editor Version 1.0 for users to create custom races for the game, but they were surprised by popular demand for a truck editor, so they included that in Monster Truck & Track Editor Version 1.1. They also released a "POD management program" named Podman.

Sales
Monster Truck Madness was a commercial success, accumulating a worldwide following. The game peaked at number 10 on PC Data's PC games sales charts during October, subsequently dropping to number 18 for November. It debuted at number 73 at NPD Group's Top Entertainment Titles chart in September, reaching number 13 in October. The game sold 144,000 copies in the U.S in the first six months.

Critical reviews
Monster Truck Madness received mainly positive reviews in printed and online video game publications. Jeff Lundrigan, a review editor for Next Generation, praised the game being able to manipulate the capabilities of Windows 95, since it can achieve high frame rates without 3D graphics accelerator cards. He was entertained by the game's physics model but saw it as unrealistic, citing an example of a monster truck jumping almost 100 feet above a hill. While GameSpot's Rebecca Anderson perceived monster truck racing as immature, she enjoyed playing the game and praised Armstrong's commentary. However, she spotted visual glitches appearing near static objects. The game's official website quoted a review from Bernard Dy of the website Game Briefs who called it one of the greatest Windows 95 games, viewing its graphics as similar to Papyrus Design's NASCAR Racing and adding the physics were "designed for fun". Although he cautioned that players expecting realism would be disappointed at the lack of a printed manual and an absent damage model, he felt its sound design and online manual benefited the game. The three reviewers considered the significant number of customizable performance variables to befit all "skill level[s]". PC Zone likened the game to a hybrid of Stunt Car Racer and NASCAR Racing.

Writing for Computer Gaming World, M. Clarkson commented that the game emphasizes simplicity over detail, and added that players would be amused by the trucks jumping in the air and traversing the mud. Jason C. Carnevale of Game Revolution was surprised at the game's graphical quality, saying driving through the circuits is visually pleasant with billboards, stands, automobiles, barbeque pits, and Winnebagos. He viewed the controls as comfortable and appreciated the game's multiple shortcuts. Carnevale recommended Monster Truck Madness for players desiring a short, exciting game. Reviewing the game for PC Gamer, Colin Williamson was enthused over the design of the trucks and enjoyed its gameplay, but criticized Armstrong's work and felt more tracks would be a good idea. He said the tracks are sizeable and diverse and favored the Rally races for their openness. Williamson felt that Microsoft had minimized the realism to lessen the game's difficulty. Rob Smith of PC Games commented on the trucks' slowness and noticed that their big tires allow them to bounce when "stray[ing] from the beaten track". According to Smith, auto-shift and auto-braking "on corners" assist players well. He was impressed that up to eight players can participate in the game's online multiplayer mode. Smith's summary noted the game lacked originality but provided a solid arcade-style racing experience. Monster Truck Madness was nominated for Computer Games Strategy Plus' 1996 Racing Simulation of the Year award, but lost to NASCAR Racing 2.

Legacy
Monster Truck Madness is the first entry in the Madness series of racing titles distributed by Microsoft. Terminal Reality developed the game's 1998 sequel, Monster Truck Madness 2; it features more trucks and tracks and uses the Photex2 game engine for improved graphics and physics. Microsoft subsequently published the motorcross-centered Motocross Madness in 1998, and the open world Chicago-themed Midtown Madness in 1999, both of which also received sequels. In collaboration with Microsoft, THQ and Tantalus Media created a 2003 Game Boy Advance game dubbed Monster Truck Madness, sporting 2.5D graphics, powerups, and time trial mode. GameSpot named it the best Game Boy Advance game of August 2003.

Terminal Reality made a 1997 game titled CART Precision Racing, which features gameplay simulating Indy car racing. They subsequently developed another off-road truck racing game, 4x4 Evo. In its Career Mode, the player participates in races to earn money for purchasing trucks. Its sequel 4x4 Evo 2 introduced Adventure Mission mode, where the player performs treasure hunts and rescue operations to obtain additional money.

title: Monster Truck Madness


text:
Talk:Sir Harry Smith, 1st Baronet

Untitled
Please find references to Sir Harry Smith in reference to Xhosa Chief/King Hintsa ka Phalo

NPOV
"Kaffir" is viewed as an offensive term by black South Africans. Too Old 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and having looked into the history of Smith in South Africa have found that we can use tribal names in place of that particular word. His action were mainly against the Khoisan people, I will do some editing when i have time.Tristan benedict 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Have changed offending terminology to tribal names and added source for information. Cannot change Kaffir War as that seems to be it's Anglo historical name! Why this has not been changed I don't know. Tristan benedict 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Loved and admired by all?
This article proposes that Sir Harry was widely loved and admired in South Africa. Certainly, citizens of Grahamstown seemed to have a soft spot for him. Not everyone else though, notably the Boers and the Xhosa. For example, see

[http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol031ah.html Harington, A.L. 1974. Sir Harry Smith. Military History Journal 3 (1)]

Halfsnail 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably a hangover from copying the Britannica 11th ed text. David Underdown 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrasing does say widely, which is not the same as unanimous..... certainly not all the Boers or Xhosas hated Smith... even Florence Nightingale was hated by the British Military. Raasgat 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image on Left
Please see Manual_of_Style

 * Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. (Example: Race).
 * Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using ((TOCright)). Raasgat 08:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is on my list of articles to add an Infobox Military. Not sure whether it would be sensible to use the aligning for the whole infobox? Kernel Saunters 09:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that this chagne does interfere with navigation and other elements, both the TOC and picture now span more than one para, which looks horribly messy. David Underdown 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the infobox - I would suggest that it would be better to source a new picture rather than change the toc for the infobox as no other infoboxes have this alignment to my knowledge Kernel Saunters 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep....that portrait in the infobox sure does look peculiar staring out of the article....If the ToC and the infobox were swapped it would look a lot more aesthetic  Raasgat 11:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not looking out of the article, he is loking directly at the artist. His body is tilted slightly to the right. I don't see any pressing need to change the orientation here. It looks fine to meKernel Saunters 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking at it again his eyes are looking straight forward, despite the angling of the head and body to the right - it's not look it's a full on profile. When it was chagned previously it really did make a mess of the article as I said above.  David Underdown 12:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there can be any doubt that his body is facing out of the article. Full on profile?? The real mess is cramming the image in the infobox....Raasgat 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Marriage?
When did he marry? "a few days" later is not a proper line in an encyclopedia... In a story it could be, but not in an Encyclopedia, googling it I see an entry that pointed out 9th day of April as the proper date and it would be reasonable due to what I see but I couldn't open the pdf to read it fully... And pdfs rarely come with a cache...Undead Herle King (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well much of the text in that section seems to be verbatim from the 11th edition Britannica, so it was once deemed proper encyclopaedic style. Wihtout better sources, we can't do any better.  David Underdown (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GCB ?
The UPenn version of Smith's Autobiography (In the tabled overview) lists him getting a GCB for Aliwal in 1846. Any other sources for this beeing ccorrect or not? Wefa (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A search of the London Gazette certainly seems to support the fact that he was a GCB, though I haven't found the original award, so I'm not 100% sure it was specifically for Aliwal. David Underdown (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay White People!
Just wanted to point out the glaring colonial pov in this article. Certainly the British Empire saw him as a hero - he was an agent of their colonialism. That doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to present him uncritically as a hero - he's certainly not a hero to the majority of South Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.102.116 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

... kiss his feet???
This strange and out-of-context sentence was inserted into the article 5 years ago: "His reputation now is of someone who behaved autocratically and oppressively towards the Xhosa, and did a great deal of harm. It is said he insisted chiefs kiss his feet, for example.". It was inserted by an IP, was not accompanied by any talk, and is not supported by any (given) source. Barring good arguments to the contrary, I intend to remove it. The Brendon quote ("half-mad Harry Smith") seems similarly suspicious to me; I can't shake the suspicion Brendon plucked it from a contemporary political speech or philippic. I have yet to read Brendon, though, so I'll wait until I did :-/ Wefa (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be no objection, I will remove the unsourced claim.
 * As for the Brendon quote, Brendon, it turns out, quotes that thing from another book. His footnote ascribes it to "Frontiers: the Epic of South Africa's Creation and the Tragedy of the Xhosa People" by Noel Mostert, a Journalist by trade - which seems to be out of print, not available electronically, and by the descriptions looks like more of a historic narrative claiming to "reinterpret South Africa's History" than an actual work of a historian. Does anyone have that and can look into it?Wefa (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sir Harry Smith, 1st Baronet


text: Template:Swl

title: Template:Swl


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2A

 * Acraman, Rodney, interim Ombudsman. (original)
 * Ah Koy, James: flamboyant Fijian politician. (original)
 * Ali, Ahmed: Fijian academic and politician. (original)
 * Ali, Amjad: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Ali, Shamima: Indo-Fijian human rights activist. (original)
 * Anthony, Felix: Fijian Senator. (original)
 * Arjun, Narendra: former parliamentarian from the National Federation Party. (original)
 * Arya, Kamlesh Kumar: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2A


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2B

 * Baba, Jale: businessman and General Secretary of the United Fiji Party (SDL). (original)
 * Baba, Tupeni: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Babla, Anand: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Bain, Atu Emberson: Fijian Senator. (original)
 * Bhagwan-Rolls, Sharon: Fijian political activist. (original)
 * Bainimarama, Josaia Vorege (Frank): Fijian military strongman. (original)
 * Bainimarama, Ratu Meli: CEO of the Fijian Affairs Board; appointed December 2006. (original)
 * Bala, Parveen: Mayor of Ba Town, Fiji. (original)
 * Bale, Qoriniasi: Minister for Justice and Attorney-General of Fiji. (original)
 * Baledrokadroka, Jone: Fijian soldier. (original)
 * Banuve, Joji: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Barton, Sir Cecil: Acting Governor of Fiji (1936; 1938). (original)
 * Bavadra, Timoci: Prime Minister of Fiji (1987). (rewrite)
 * Beddoes, Mick: leader of Fiji's United People's Party. (original)
 * Bogileka, Meli: former Cabinet Minister, General Secretary of the People's National Party. (original)
 * Bokini, Ratu Ovini, Fijian chief and Chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs (2004-2006). (original)
 * Bole, Filipe: Fijian politician. (rewrite)
 * Bolobolo, Ratu Meli: Tui Navitilevu, Paramount Chief of Rakiraki, in Fiji's Ra Province. (original)
 * Browne, Joseph, Fijian civil servant. (original)
 * Bryce, Jabez: Anglican Bishop of Polynesia, based in Fiji. (original)
 * Buadromo, Virisila: Fijian political activist. (original)
 * Bulamainaivalu, Kevueli: Fiji's Assistant Police Commissioner - Crime. (original)
 * Bulanauca, Mitieli: Fijian Senator and former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Bulewa, Kelemedi: Attorney General of Fiji (1992-1996). (original)
 * Bune, Poseci: Deputy Leader of the Fiji Labour Party. (original)
 * Burt, Sydney Charles: First Premier of the Kingdom of Viti (1871-1872); Attorney General of Viti (1873-1874). (original)
 * Butadroka, Sakiasi: Fijian nationalist politician, founder of the Fijian Nationalist Party. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2B


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2C

 * Cakobau, Ratu Epenisa: Fijian chief from Bau Island. (original)
 * Cakobau, Ratu George: Senator and possible Vunivalu of Bau. (original)
 * Cakobau, Ratu Sir Edward: Fijian Chief and Cabinet Minister (1908-1973).(original)
 * Cakobau, Ratu Sir George: Fijian statesman. (original)
 * Cakobau, Adi Litia, Fijian Chief and Senator. (original)
 * Cakobau, Ratu Seru Epenisa: Fijian monarch (1800s) (original)
 * Cakobau-Talakuli, Adi Samanunu : Fijian chief. (original)
 * Caucau, Asenaca: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Viliame Cavubati: Cabinet Minister (1990s). (original)
 * Chambers, Amy: Anglican priest in Fiji. (original)
 * Chand, Ganesh: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Chand, Pratap: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Chandra, Rajesh: Vice-Chancellor of the University of Fiji. (original)
 * Chaudhry, Mahendra: Former Prime Minister of Fiji. (rewrite)
 * Chaudhry, Rajendra: Fijian lawyer, son of former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry. (original)
 * Christopher, David Ariu: Fijian politician of Banaban descent. (original)
 * Cokanasiga, Joketani, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Cokanauto, Ratu Tu'uakitau: former Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2C


text:
Talk:Caernarfon

Spelling
Why is an English encyclopedia using Welsh spelling? Do the Welsh undertake to adopt English spellings? This is nonsense. Avalon 10:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Caernarfon" is the official spelling in English, and has been since about 1970. -- Arwel 12:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I simply reject the notion that "official" or any other version of English has to adapt itself to the names other languages use for things, including cities. Beijing, Chennai, & Caernarfon are examples of English twisting itself inside out so as not to cause offence. English speakers however, do not take offence at the French calling London - Londres. It's nonsense.

 * Ah, but since Wales and England are both parts of the UK, and the official UK name for the place is "Caernarfon", that's a little bit different: "Caernarfon" is the right way to spell it, anything else is wrong. On the other hand, there is no official EU name for London, so if the French want to call it something else, it's their prerogative, even if it is technically wrong.  Finally (and this goes for the London/Londres thing as well), it's just a matter of courtesy to call someone (or some place) by the name they've chosen for themselves.  As you've posted anonymously, I don't know your name, but let's say it's "John".  If I just arbitrarily decided to call you "Juan" (a translation) or "Johnny" (a nickname) instead of "John", mightn't you consider that a little rude? —Ryan McDaniel 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Currently the aricle says "(the Welsh spelling is now always used in preference to the anglicised forms, "Caernarvon" or "Carnarvon")". A quick google search will reveal that some people are using Caernarvon or Carnarvon for up-to-date stuff like booking holidays, posting their photos to the web etc (and yes I have checked that these links are not refering to places in the USA or Australia).  Accordingly I have changed the wording to "(the Welsh spelling is sometimes used in preference to the anglicised forms, "Caernarvon" or "Carnarvon")". Greenshed 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Rather than revert the edit I've replaced it with "(the original Welsh spelling is now almost always used in preference to the anglicised forms, "Caernarvon" or "Carnarvon")". To say "sometimes used" implies that it is the exception rather than the norm; that is certainly not the case in Wales, just the opposite. Caernarfon is a Welsh town with a Welsh name and that Welsh name's Welsh spelling is now the official name; why is that so hard for some people to accept? Enaidmawr 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I have to dispute the claim that "Carnarvon" is ever used to spell the name of the Welsh town contemporaneously. A Google search for "Carnarvon" shows up just over 2 million pages. Excluding "Australia" and "South Africa" bring it down to just over 600,000. An examination shows that the first few pages relate either to the aristocratic title, historic records from the nineteenth century, other residual pages relating to places in Australia and South Africa, various "HMS Carnarvon"s, Carnarvon Primary School, Nottinghamshire, a Carnarvon family, etc. Quite simply, anybody who nowadays spells the name of the Welsh town as "Carnarvon" is just plain wrong. -- Arwel (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I should like to say that I dispute that the spelling "Caernarfon" is "ever" used by anyone who is not(a)Welsh or (b) some sort of bureaucrat to whom UK officialese is more important that the English language. But of course, my basis for saying that would probably not stand much scrutiny - how about you? I do believe that several people have missed the point - the dispute is not a) how Welsh people spell it, or b) how some faceless UK bureaucrat decided the "official" placename should be spelled - it's how the word is spelled in the English language by most users of the language. That's what Wikipedia should use - and that's why, when I search for Rome or Venice or Moscow, I get what I expect from an English language encyclopaedia (although, oddly, Leghorn results in a redirect to Livorno). And, no, I don't accept that at some time around 1970 (or any other time) I suddenly became just plain "wrong" to continue to use the spelling I used before that date. 139.163.138.14 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Usual nonsense of the English language bending over backwards to accomodate non-English names... can the Welsh name Llundain now be abolished then, seeing as the English capital city name is 'London'?

Much of this discussion misses the point, in my view. English-speaking countries do not have an academy of language, as France or Spain do, and there is no such thing as an "official" spelling of names or anything else. Governments do have their own internal conventions on the use of English: for example, a British civil servant will always use a plural verb after the word "Government" since this is thought best to reflect the principle of cabinet responsibility. But authors and editors are free to write as they wish (hence for example the "Oxford" use of verbs ending in "-ize" rather than "-ise", generally the preferred form in British English). There is a vigorous debate about whether grammar, and by analogy other usage, ought to be prescriptive or descriptive; but for many years now the descriptivists have been in the lead, and accordingly usage rather than the whim of authority is generally regarded as the best guide, as it is in Wikipedia policies. Just as we do not call Munich "München" or Rome "Roma", so we should call this town "Caernavon" when we are writing English (er basen ni'n defnyddio "Caernafon", tasen ni'n ysgrifennu yng Nghymraeg). Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Red dot
This article has a wonky red dot. Could someone sort it out? If you work out how, the Bangor, Wales article has a similar problem SP-KP 18:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me in Firefox 1.5, Opera 8.5, Safari 2.0 and IE 6.0. Owain 19:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Both are misplaced for me, too -- it appears just below the center of the title of the article, nowhere near the map. Mozilla 1.1 on Yellow Dog Linux on a Macintosh laptop.  Same for Bangor, Wales. -- Mareklug  talk  00:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Capital
We should probably mention Caernarfon's (lapsed) claims to be capital of Wales - according to this 1955 times article I'm reading it had made a formal claim in 1951. Morwen - Talk 11:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Twin Town
The twin town of Caernarfon is Landernau. Landernau is situated in Brittany, France.

Reverted Vandal NoelWalley 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Town walls
Why is there nothing about the town walls? Like the castle, they are a remarkable medieval structure, and have contibuted to Caernarfon's status as World Heritage Site. Moreover, they have considerable affected the history and development of the town, as well as the culture (eg. for a time, no Welshman could live within the walls). To understand the town, you must understand the walls. Gwinva 10:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a brief mention to the "Landmarks" section, with a link to the main article. Alansplodge (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed the merge since the contents of the article (Carnarvon) don't, in my opinion, justify an article page of it's own although perhaps there should be a disambiguation page for the lists. --92.237.94.9 (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Disagree. The page is not in fact an article but a disambiguation page. Furthermore it is not clear that all the examples of Carnarvon/Caernarvon found there derive from the name of the town, although it would seem that most do. There are a lot of names there, places, people and other things: how would they fit in this article? It makes no sense and is contrary to wikipedia usage. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Carnarvon is a disambiguation page and clearly labelled as such. I can't discern a valid reason for merging a disambiguation page into this article, either in the nominator's proposal, or in any actual policies or guidelines. As Enaidmawr has said 'It makes no sense and is contrary to wikipedia usage'. I suspect with the comment 'perhaps there should be a disambiguation page for the lists' the nominator has not understood that the Carnarvon page is already a disambiguation one. Unless an actual reason can be given why a well developed and stocked disambiguation page needs to be merged into the primary usage one, I suggest this proposal be quickly declined. Benea (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cofi use of "cont"
Surely something should be said about this interesting linguistic anomaly --Sion Derfel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.32.174 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Phone Code
A large number of websites contain an incorrect spelling duplicating an error present in Ofcom's (previously Oftel) UK area code list for the last decade. 01286 was listed as Caernarvon in the official UK area code list and only recently corrected to Caernarfon, see their Errata. 212.139.105.91 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Maes
It would be useful to include the Welsh and English pronunciations of Maes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Royal Town of Caernarfon
This phrase has since been added prominently to the first sentence of the lead by @A.D.Hope, I believe to be consistent with English places that also have the royal patronage but is "Royal Town of Caernarfon" the actual legal title or merely a descriptor? I see mixed use on its capitalisation, which indicates to me it is a descriptor, plus one not always used. Would prefer "Caernarfon (also known as the Royal Town of Caernarfon, historically anglicised as Carnarvon and Caernarvon) is a royal town, community and port.", although the parenthesis kinda clutters the lead and it can be just in the infobox. Coflein describes it as the "status of royal town" rather than a title, and the council uses "Caernarfon Royal Town" in their name.

Plus the other royal town Sutton Coldfield starts with that. Happy to be disproven.  Dank Jae  13:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * 'Royal Town of Caernarfon' is the form used in legislation (example 1, example 2), so I assume it's the official name. The town council rearrange it slightly to 'Caernarfon Royal Town', but I'm inclined to follow the legislation. I did think that the article referenced at least one piece of legislation which referred to the town in this way, but I've had a second look and I must have been mistaken.
 * In general I prefer the official name, then the common name, then any other names. Particularly in this case, where the official name is rarely used, '[X], commonly known as [Y]' strikes me as clearer to readers than '[Y], (also known as [X])', which could imply that 'Royal Town' is used more than it is.
 * In terms of lead clutter, I did wonder if 'Carnarvon' and 'Caernarvon' could be moved out of the lead and into 'Toponymy', but even though they've both dropped out of favour I appreciate that could still be controversial. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That on the council though. And if we have to follow through it is like wording Cardiff to be “The City and County of Cardiff, commonly known as Cardiff”, which is very odd IMO. I rarely see legal names on settlements.  Dank Jae  15:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look at the list of place names with royal patronage in the United Kingdom (wordy title!), the common format is to use the full name first then clarify it if necessary (full disclosure, I rearranged Berkshire). Sutton Coldfield is the outlier. Personally I would flip Cardiff's lead so that the official name came first, but it's not especially important. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would oppose Cardiff, and all those listed are districts not settlements. Settlements really do not have a legal name. E.g. Because Doncaster is now a city and its council is City of Doncaster it does not mean Doncaster should be “The City of Doncaster is a city in” etc. and I’m referring to the place not the district.  Dank Jae  20:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing Cardiff. Leamington Spa, Sutton Coldfield, Tunbridge Wells, and Wootton Bassett are settlements; only Royal Tunbridge Wells shares its name with its district, but the district does not use the 'Royal' prefix.
 * For the record, districts in England are mostly not renamed 'City of [X] if they're awarded city status — I believe Hull is the only example. In the others the district council often renames itself, but the legal name of the district remains just 'Lancaster', 'Canterbury', etc.A.D.Hope (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't exactly compare Caernarfon with Leamington Spa and Tunbridge Wells, they got merely a Royal prefix, and such name with "Royal" is used in secondary sources, so it is essentially a rename. Only Sutton Coldfield is comparable. I rarely see the "Royal Town of Caernarfon" used and when it is, per above, sometimes it appears to be a description than any legal name.
 * RTW is kinda the opposite situation, the Royal is clearly evidenced for the settlement and not for the district. But here for Caernarfon, legally only the council is found to use the term, not clearly the settlement.
 * I compared to Doncaster as its council is known as "City of Doncaster", basing your argument for Caernarfon, that per the council name. But obviously it should just be "Doncaster" (for the settlement). A better example may be like Newcastle upon Tyne, per this act, but its lead should obviously just be the settlement name not The "City of Newcastle upon Tyne, commonly known as Newcastle upon Tyne or just Newcastle is a etc".
 * Ofc, if there is a source stating "Royal Town of Caernarfon" is the settlement's name not just for the council or a descriptor, then this would be fine, and accept it. But with patchy use and lack of such source, I believe it is merely a descriptor, and at least to the average reader not really necessary.
 * If you wish for official names to take primacy in settlement leads, be free to raise it at the projects. Regards  Dank Jae  20:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky one. Unfortunately I can't find the actual letters patent issued in 1974, but the letters patent granted to Wootton Bassett state that it should be 'called and styled Royal Wootton Bassett' and probably reflect the style used for Caernarfon. In addition, Sutton Coldfield's 1528 charter apparently states: 'the same town and village shall for ever hereafter be accounted, named and called, The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, in our County of Warwick.' This contrasts with the letters patent issued to cities, which only state that city status has been conferred and don't explicitly rename a place.
 * So, although the primary evidence is missing I think it's fair to assume that Caernarfon's full name is 'The Royal Town of Caernarfon'. It's also obvious that this name is largely confined to some official usages, such as by the town council, legislation, and the appointment of the castle constable. Still, it is a name of the settlement.
 * To me the simplest way to include this in the lead is in the form "The Royal Town of Caernarfon, commonly known as Caernarfon." Swapping the order means you need to think of an appropriate form of words, and an adverb like 'officially' won't do when the town is just 'Caernarfon' for many official purposes. We could just bung it in the infobox and hope for the best, I suppose. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Still don't think we should give prominence in the lead on an assumption, that can narrowly refer to the council, and one of no real significance to readers. Having it only in the infobox had worked for years? Plus WP:UKTOWNS prefers common names if in doubt, which I am, and "official names" not in common use are rare in settlement leads?  Dank Jae  22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But infoboxes should be summaries of the text. It could be in the infobox and main text and need not be in the lead, but shouldn't really only be in the infobox. It is useful information for the main. I have no strong feelings about mention in the lead, but do think that per the MOS, the lead should start with Caernarfon, which is clearly the COMMONNAME. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADSENTENCE isn't much help. The most relevant section is:
 * It then gives the example of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain"
 * That means "The Royal Town of Caernarfon, commonly known as Caernarfon" is a justifiable format for the lead sentence, but 'may' doesn't mean 'must' so we certainly don't have to mention the royal town so early. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That means "The Royal Town of Caernarfon, commonly known as Caernarfon" is a justifiable format for the lead sentence, but 'may' doesn't mean 'must' so we certainly don't have to mention the royal town so early. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Caernarfon


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2D

 * Dakuidreketi, Keni, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Datt, Krishna: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Delailomaloma, Nelson, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * De Ricci, James Herman: Attorney General of Fiji (1875-1876). (original)
 * Digitaki, Laisa, businesswoman and pro-democracy activist. (original)
 * Ratu Josefa Dimuri: Fijian chief and politician. (original)
 * Dobui, Manoa: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Doyle, Brian Andre: Solicitor General of Fiji (1948-1951) and Attorney General (1949-1956). (original)
 * Draunidalo, Savenaca: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Draunidalo, Tupou: Fijian lawyer. (original)
 * Driti, Pita: Land Force Commander, Republic of Fiji Military Forces. (original)
 * Driver, Moses: Deputy Commissioner of Police in Fiji. (original)
 * Druavesi, Ema: General Secretary of the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT). (original)
 * Duvuloco, Iliesa: Fijian nationalist politician; leader of the Nationalist Vanua Tako Lavo Party. (original)
 * Dyer, Adi Senimili, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2D


text:
Scone railway station

Scone railway station is a heritage-listed railway station located on the Main Northern line in Scone, in the Upper Hunter Shire local government area of New South Wales, Australia. The station serves the town of Scone and opened on 17 April 1871. The property was added to the New South Wales State Heritage Register on 2 April 1999.

Station configuration
The station has one platform and a passing loop. The original John Whitton 1871 brick building remains. In June 2014 the layout was reconfigured with the former loop becoming the main line and the platform line the loop.

The complex includes a type 4 brick second class station building, erected in 1871; a standard timber skillion roof type 3 signal box; and an outshed. Other structures include a brick platform face, completed in 1871; a jib crane; and a former goods loading facility.

Platforms and services
Scone is the terminating point for NSW TrainLink's Hunter Line services from Newcastle and a stopping point for NSW TrainLink Xplorer services from Sydney to Armidale and Moree.

The Hunter services were introduced by CityRail in September 1990.

Hunter line services usually terminate at the southern end of the platform which is slightly raised. Xplorers use the full platform.

There are three local services to/from Newcastle on weekdays, with two per day on weekends and public holidays.

Heritage listing
Scone station is a fine mid-Victorian station building dating from the opening of the line. The building is well detailed and of fine proportion, it forms part of a group of buildings on that section of the line all that date from the opening of the line and which form a very important group of railway buildings in the state. The building also forms an important civic group in the town and contributes greatly to its character. The station is a focal point of the northern approach to the town.

Scone railway station was listed on the New South Wales State Heritage Register on 2 April 1999 having satisfied the following criteria.

The place possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the cultural or natural history of New South Wales.

This item is assessed as historically rare. This item is assessed as arch. rare. This item is assessed as socially rare.

title: Scone railway station


text:
Huntley Township, Ontario

Huntley is a former incorporated and now geographic township in Carleton County in eastern Ontario, Canada.

Huntley was located in the western part of the county, bordered to the northwest by Fitzroy Township, to the northeast by March Township, to the southwest by Ramsay Township and to the southeast by Goulbourn Township. It includes the communities of Carp, Corkery, Huntley, Manion Corners, and Westwood.

According to the Canada 2021 Census, the Township had a population of 10,922.

History
The township was surveyed in 1818 and the first settlers arrived shortly thereafter. The township was incorporated in 1850. The first settlers in the area were immigrants from Ireland in the early 19th century. Huntley took its name from Huntly Castle, associated with Charlotte Lennox, Duchess of Richmond, whose husband Charles served as Governor General of British North America from 1818 to 1819.

By 1866, there was a Post Office in the township of Huntley and John Graham served as postmaster.

In 1974, it was amalgamated with Torbolton and Fitzroy to form West Carleton. In 2001, West Carleton became part of the new city of Ottawa.

Reeves

 * 1850 J.E. Fenton
 * 1853 Henry McBride
 * 1862 John Holmes
 * 1869 John Caldwell
 * 1874 Edward Armstrong
 * 1875 John Holmes
 * 1876 Edward Armstrong
 * 1889 George Nelson Kidd
 * 1894 A. Hodgkins
 * 1897 n/a
 * 1907 G.A. Hodgkins
 * 1911 Robert Cox
 * 1923 William Rivington
 * 1947 William J. Cox
 * 1949 E.F. Johnston
 * 1956 J.A. Boyd
 * 1968 Glen Rivington

title: Huntley Township, Ontario


text:
Talk:Korean pronouns

[Untitled]
Suggested additions:
 * Broad IPA transcriptions
 * A more comprehensive listing of pronouns based on a complete kinship tree
 * Notes on grammatical lexemes signifying speaker as well as addressee person, gender, number and other cases as present in the Korean language

Just added some info on second person singular. Not expert (in editing I mean)

title: Talk:Korean pronouns


text:
User talk:EricBright

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Images
I have deleted Image:Propositional Logic.png as you requested but bear in mind that all that means is that I have removed a db tag. The image is on the Commons and you must go over there to request the image itself be removed.

I do not like to see different articles or images on titles which would be identical if threated case-insensitively. But actual deletion of Image:Propositional Logic.png will solve that problem.

I strongly disapprove of this image (either version) - it is totally anti-colaborative. It should be rendered as a normal Wiki table. As well as allowing others to contribute, it is more flexible allowing for different formatting depending on the browser and window size in use. I am sure the Wiki function (which I believe is just LaTex) is fully capable of handling the formula. Please consider re-doing as a table. -- RHaworth 10:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Redoing the table
Dear RHaworth,

Thank you for your warm welcome. I am considering redoing the 'propositional logic' table using Wiki table. I do it as soon as I figured its how-to out. It would look like the following table:

Eric 02:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent. I have redone the first line using as described in meta:Help:Formula - and it does not look as good. I have redone it again using &sup; ⊃ - see the ISO 8859-1 list. &equiv; ≡ is another you need. -- RHaworth 15:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

→ is closer to what we use in...
Dear RHaworth,

Thanks for your encouragement. I revised the table and I think this symbol ⊃ that usually means 'proper superset of...' is not exactly what we mean by → in 'propositional logic'; we rather use → for what we call 'if...then...'. However, some people use ⊃ in their writings for 'if...then...'. In that case, it becomes confusing when it comes to the Axiomatic propositional logic, where we use both ⊃ and → with the aforementioned meanings. Therefore, if you agree, I keep the arrow '→' untouched.

We also use turnstile, ⊢, to convey something like the following: and we read this methalinguistic claim like:
 * p ∨ q, p → r, q → s, ¬s ⊢ r''

There is a proof of the sentence on the right of the turnstile (r) from the ensemble of sentences on the left of it (p ∨ q, p → r, q → s, ¬s). Then, turnstile is not metalinguistically equal to 'if...then...'.

However we can prove:

⊢ Σ → A

from:

Σ ⊢ A

using the axiomatic logic. Such a thing is called The Deduction Theorem [DT] that says:

For any set Σ ⊆ Φ, and for any wffs α, β ∈ Φ, if Σ ∪ {α} ⊢ β, then Σ ⊢ α → β.

By the way, ≡ is exactly what I wanted. I substituted :⇔ with ≡. Now we have a more accurate table.

I also want to know if there is any way to refer to this table from inside of 'Deductive Logic' article (it uses the PNG format yet). Then we don't have to reproduce and edit the same table twice.

Eric 01:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Material equivalence

 * Material Equivalence (1)
 * (p :⇔ q) ⊢ [(p → q) ∨ (q → p)]
 * (p is equiv. to q) means, either (if p is true then q is true) or (if q is true then p is true)

There is an error on material equivalence, both conditions are necessary to make p equivalent to q, so the simbol AND is mistaken by simbol OR.
 * image: (p is equiv. to q) means, either (if p is true then q is true) or (if q is true then p is true)
 * $$ (p \equiv q) \equiv [(p \rightarrow q) \lor (q \rightarrow p)]$$
 * correct: (p is equiv. to q) means, (if p is true then q is true) and (if q is true then p is true)
 * $$ (p \equiv q) \equiv [(p \rightarrow q) \land (q \rightarrow p)]$$

has the same error.

external link

 * I substituted the png picture with an editable table. Thank you for letting me know. Eric 06:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

December 2019
Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie. Thank you for reaching out. As I could tell from the comparison table, JASP was on the table while it is not as polished and as complete as jamovi.

You should have contacted me first before reversing all of the edits. Not only you versed my insertion of jamovi (which now has a long Lynda.com tutorial as well as a few full-length books written about it), but also inadvertently reverted my updates for other software unrelated to jamovi.

Would you please correct the updates for other software besides jamovi while we are discussing jamovi in here? Thanks.

I will look into your linked guideline to see what I need to do in this circumstance. As of this moment, I believe we simply must re-create the jamovi page on Wikipedia, since I think the previous assessment of the package are no longer valid.

Eric Bright (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link to the course on Lynda.com:
 * https://www.lynda.com/jamovi-tutorials/Introduction-jamovi/5016725-2.html

These are some books on jamovi:
 * https://vorpress.com/
 * http://www.hakjisa.co.kr/subpage.html?page=book_book_info&bidx=4308
 * learning statistics with jamovi https://www.learnstatswithjamovi.com/

Eric Bright (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

A UBC article using jamovi:

Psychometrics & Post-Data Analysis: A Software Implementation for Binary Logistic Regression in Jamovi
 * https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0380439

Another article using jamovi for analysis:

mbir: Magnitude-Based Inferences Eric Bright (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00746

 * I didn't revert any other changes you made, which you can verify by looking at the diff. As to your sources, they'll get reviewed by whoever looks at your draft article. Take a look at WP:RS to see what is generally acceptable. In your place I would leave out the tutorials, self published ones (such as the BA thesis), and the trivial mentions (such as the mbir piece). This draft will probably be looked at a little more closely than most, because some overzealous person has repeatedly recreated a badly sourced Jamovi article, which has lead to a lock against recreation that will have to be overriden by an administrator. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Better be safe than sorry, I guess. A poorly written article about any topic might cause more confusions that it might clear up. Well, someone will hopefully look into the matter a bit more closes in the future.

I updated Orange and ROOT (and another one if I recall correctly) to their latest versions of which all but one was reverted the last time I checked (I'll check that out again).

Again, thanks for the follow up.

Eric Bright (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:EricBright


text:
Live: A Night on the Strip

Live: A Night on the Strip is a live recording by L.A. Guns which occurred October 7, 1999, at the Key Club on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood.

Track listing

 * 1) "Face Down"
 * 2) "Sex Actions
 * 3) "One More Reason"
 * 4) "Kiss My Love Goodbye"
 * 5) "Bitch Is Back"
 * 6) "Time"
 * 7) "Long Time Dead"
 * 8) "Over the Edge"
 * 9) "Never Enough"
 * 10) "Nothing Better to Do"
 * 11) "Guitar Solo"
 * 12) "Electric Gypsy"
 * 13) "Ballad of Jayne"
 * 14) "Rip N Tear"

Personnel

 * Phil Lewis - vocals
 * Tracii Guns - guitar
 * Mick Cripps - guitar
 * Kelly Nickels - bass guitar
 * Steve Riley - drums

title: Live: A Night on the Strip


text:
User talk:Circuitloss

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! KHM03 10:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

 * Ah, a welcome message, that's really nice. Frankly, I think that Wikipedia will come to be remembered as one of the greatest projects in the history of humankind.  I'm not exagerating.  The Wiki is to the information age what the steam engine was to the industrial age.  I will be proud to make whatever tiny contribution that I can to such an epic project.  Thanks. --circuitloss 17:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

BCP
I agree wholeheartedly with your view on the Book of Common Prayer; it is quite simply the best liturgical resource in human history (to date). I believe in formal liturgical worship (I'm quite "high church" for a United Methodist), not to the exclusion of other expressions, but as the finest way we've come up with. Good stuff. KHM03 17:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CoC
Here is a proposed framework for an improved article; feel free to add to it and/or edit in the days ahead. Eventually - hopefully - it can replace the POV monstrosity that currently exists. Thanks...KHM03 22:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:CompassRose.gif
Hi. Sorry; I don't have any reason for supposing that either the design or this particular rendering of it is free. I'm not a lawyer; I don't really know what the deal is. I guess you could ask the Anglican Communion Office about the former and the Compass Rose Society about the latter? Doops | talk 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Backpacking (travel) rewrite
''Mike,just FYI, but I just did a big overhall of Backpacking and I'd like you to take a look at when you get a chance. I hope it's a lot better than the mess I found when I got there. --circuitloss 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)''
 * Thanks for all the hard work!! It is certainly much better than the trainwreck that was.  stick around ;)... ∴ here…♠ 02:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just had a quick skim read of it. It's so much better than it was. It's much more like an encyclopedia now, instead of being a random compilation of people's experiences and opinions. (Barry m 06:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Anti-Americanism getting out of control
''I need you to review something when you get a chance. "Phil," is fighting a revert war with me over in Backpacking (travel) and I need a second opinion on what to do. He's actually quoting himself as a source in the most recent revision of the article. Check out the "criticism" section to see what I mean. This seems wrong on several levels, not the least of which is No original research! Thanks! --circuitloss 00:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)''
 * Thanks for the note. I reverted to your last edit and explained why on the talk page.  ∴ here…♠ 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Joyriding
I can assure you that in Great Britain and Ireland, the term "joyriding" is universally understood to mean "theft of a motor vehicle" for the purpose of driving it at dangerous high speeds and with total disregard for the safety of other people. The usual intention is apparently to attract and then to try and outrun the police. The perpetrators tend to be the less intelligent and more anti-socially irresponsible members of the 13 - 21 age group. As another contributor to the discussion has pointed out, this lunacy has resulted in numerous deaths and injuries. I accept that it may have a different meaning in North America as do many other words. If, however, I spotted a word that is offensive to Americans, though not to us English, I would support any American who wanted it removed. --BlackJack | talk page 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I think you would be wrong for doing so. Just because something is offensive or illegal doesn't mean it should be removed.  Also, given the varying definitions and interpretations of the word, many users are probably using it based on an assumption of its other, innocuous, definition.  But this is why we have votes for deletion anyway, so that we can discuss these things.  --circuitloss 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Backpacking (United States)
I'd support a vote for deletion of this article. I'd nominate it for deletion myself, but I'm not comfortable yet with the procedure.Lord of the Ping 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism COTM
The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:William Smith -- founder of William Smith College.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:William Smith -- founder of William Smith College.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Circuitloss


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2F

 * Falvey, John Neil: Attorney General of Fiji (1970-1977). (original)

 * Fatiaki, Daniel: Chief Justice of Fiji since 2002. (original)
 * Foster, Peter: international fraudster. (major edit)
 * Foster, Sir Robert Sidney: Fiji'S last colonial Governor (1968-1970) and first Governor-General (1970-1973. (major edit)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2F