User talk:Ro Thorpe/Archive 3

Ro Thorpe

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

archiving

Hi Ro, I deleted the Archive 2 page because I don't think it will let you move to a page to one that exists. I put a new archive box in, too - {{archive box}} in you new talk page. Let's see what happens! D. Matt Innis 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

PJ Proby

Why did you move this to P.J. Proby? Style guides recommend that title with initials no longer use full stops. It's PJ Proby not P.J. Proby. Meg Ireland 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Archive your Talk page please. It's too long. Meg Ireland 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that must be referring to initals like ABC, CBS, PVC, initials only. People's names must have the stops.

I don't know how to archive, but you're welcome to do it, or tell me how. Ro Thorpe 22:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they list people's names as examples. Meg Ireland 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ro, can I ask what system you are using? I've always used BE with the New Oxford Style Guide as my source. The OSG states: "no dots and no spaces in initials". Meg Ireland 23:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm about 99% certain that CZ style is to use A.J. Leibling, A.E. Housman, but ABC, NATO etc. I'll try to find some examples. Hayford Peirce 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent). A *very* quick search found P.G. Wodehouse, C.S. Lewis, C.S. Forester, and B. P. Koirala of Nepal. So I'm sure that there are many others. And that this is the accepted CZ style. Therefore Ro was correct to move the article to P.J. Proby. Hayford Peirce 23:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hayford. Hope that's OK/O.K. with you, Meg. Ro Thorpe 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rheaux tried to wipe me out with an edit conflict, but I managed to recover the following:

In Article Mechanics, we find:

Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and usage [edit]

Strunk and White's Elements of Style is useful; the first edition is available here.

For American English, please consult The Chicago Manual of Style for matters of formatting, punctuation, etc. and Garner's Dictionary of American English Usage for issues of usage.

For British English, consult Fowler's Modern English Usage.

I have just consulted my own copy of Fowler's, and throughout he uses the periods when giving people's names. So CZ is telling us to use Fowlers, and Fowlers tells us to use the period. Hayford Peirce 23:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

More examples: G.K. Chesterton, G.W.F. Hegel, and R. James Woolsey. In Wikipedia, all names have the periods, including the quinessential British historian A.J.P. Taylor. Hayford Peirce 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm mighty relieved, even if I'm wiping you out again (cue surfing music...) Ro Thorpe 00:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(Restoring this comment below which was removed during Hayford's page move):

Is there a reason Hayford when I talk to someone on CZ you always butt in? It's becoming exceedingly annoying. If I wanted to talk to you I would have left a message on your Talk page, not Ro's.

I have moved it because I really can't be bothered arguing semantics anymore. At least I left a comment on your Talk page, something which was not afforded me. Meg Ireland 02:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Meg, I'm afraid that you have a distorted view of what CZ is -- the talk pages are there for precisely that reason: Talk. If you want to have a *private* conversation with another member of CZ, then email that person privately. As long as you direct your comments to Ro's talk page (or to any other Citizen's, I, and any other Citizen have a perfect right to read it and to add our own comments to it. If you were to send messages to me on my *own* talk page, then Ro, and Larry Sanger, and a gazillion other people are welcome to come and add to it. Hayford Peirce 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay then Hayford in future I will email only instead, btw on wikipedia P.G. Wodehouse, C.S. Lewis, C.S. Forester all have spaces between the initials, so the article title should be eg. P. G. Wodehouse not P.G. Wodehouse, according to the Chicago Manual of Style (2003): "The space between initials should be the same as the space between the last initial and the name ... with or without periods". (p. 312) Meg Ireland 03:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me drop in, as well :-) Shouldn't it be full names (usually) for the main title, at least for those names the person used himself? e.g. Gilbert K. Chesterton. (I agree that G. K. Chesterton - with two space - does not look well, so that initials in sequence should not be separated by spaces). But in the case of "PJ Proby" or "P J Proby" this seems to be a pseudonym or artist's name, and as such, I think, it should not be changed -- it is a sort of a "trademark" that should be used as used by himself. Peter Schmitt 09:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends entirely upon what the person is generally known by. A.P.J. Taylor, the historian, and A.J. Cronin, the writer, for instance, are *always* written about and identified in that way. Chesterton appears to be a toss-up -- a Bing search lists 2.5 million for the Gilbert K. and 2.4 million for the G.K. C.S. Lewis, I would say, is also *always* identified that way. As for Proby, I've never heard of him and don't have a clue as to who he is or what he does or what he calls himself. Hayford Peirce 14:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This Gilbert K. Chesterton is new to me. Whatever next, Percival J. Proby? Ro Thorpe 15:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know PJ Proby, either. But I looked at the CZ page about him. Peter Schmitt 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert K. is new to me also, but it seems to be in wide use, at least according to Bing. You can try Googling it to see what turns up. (PS, I think that G.B. Shaw and George Bernard are probably both used widely, but I'm not gonna bother to Bing it.Hayford Peirce 17:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whenever possible I would use neither Bing nor Google, but the version used in the books (title page and/or signature on the foreword). Peter Schmitt 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, Peter. But it blows your Gilbert K. out of the water. If you go to the book section of Amazon and type in G.K. Chesterton you get 12,600 hits. With Gilbert K. you get 875. And *most* of the book covers that I saw say G.K.... Hayford Peirce 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) In the 60s when I first saw them, I was surprised to see Penguin Books had 'Bernard Shaw' without the 'George'. Ro Thorpe 17:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Like having a book with the author being "Conan Doyle". Hayford Peirce 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

('Unindent' Why?) Yes, although WP on Conan Doyle says: 'The origin of this compound name is uncertain', whereas 'Bernard' clearly was a 'middle name' in the usual, given, sense. Ro Thorpe 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To tell the uninitiated that, yes, I meant to end the on-going indentation wars and to start things over again from the left margin, not that I did this by mistake or ignorance. Or willfulness. Yes, the Conan Doyle business is a true Victorian mystery to me. It seems to me that when I was a kid most people referred to him as Doyle. But that as the years went by he became more and more often Conan Doyle. Hayford Peirce 18:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did not know about Chesterton, but since I remembered the Gilbert (but not the Keith) I took this as an example. Peter Schmitt 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

OK, Robert. I will. I had not realized the error. Thanks for the warning.

Greetings from the neighbor country. --Javier Abellán Sánchez 09:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page creation

David Volk has said, if I understand correctly, that there can be a bug in "definitions needed" if the default is accepted and a talk page is created immediately after metadata is saved. As a result, I make a practice of creating metadata, going back to the main page, creating the definition, and only then creating the talk page. In general, I don't need to have them created for me while I'm in the process of setting up an article; there may be a reason why I don't create them immediately. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

King Kamehameha I

I have no objections to the edits you made, and indeed thank you for taking the time to do so.

Just for my own future reference, is there a rule or policy regarding this, or is it merely an unspoken rule, or perhaps a difference in British and American english writing styles?Drew R. Smith 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the capital letters, no, it's not to do with British/American, it's about title case and normal case. The headings are supposed to be in normal case, though a lot of people here at CZ don't seem to be too bothered about this. But it is important to distinguish between proper names and other words in an encyclopedia. Thus 'Kamehameha' in the header above. It's usually done correctly at Wikipedia, where they have robots on the case, if I am not mistaken.

I was about to put in some okinas also. Since they aren't part of standard English and therefore cannot go in the article titles (someone will I hope soon correct me if I'm wrong about this) I was going to put in some piped links, with the okina version on the right, so it shows up in your article but doesn't affect the titles when the articles come to be written... Ro Thorpe 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that headings were treated like titles of books, with every word uppercase, save for small words...

As for the okinas, no, I don't believe they can be put into the article titles, which is why I usually use a backtick for links instead. Also, we now have the {{okina}} template, which produces an okina that is readable by all browsers. This doesnt work with links either, for example Hawaiʻi, but does work in plain text like this Hawaiʻi. The only reason I haven't been using it is because it is a pain to type out {{okina}} every time. Once the article is complete, I will go through and replace all the instances of the backtick with this template.Drew R. Smith 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apparently it does work with links. It still doesn't work with article titles though, so you would have to use [[Hawaii|Hawai{{okina}}i]] instead of [[Hawai{{okina}}i]] which produces [[Hawaiʻi]].Drew R. Smith 02:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have Moved everything to a new article with the word King at the end -- CZ convention is NOT to call an article King Hayford III but Hayford III, King. etc....

Well, I'm wrong again, as usual. CZ does not USE the word KING in article titles, no matter *where* it's located. So I'll move it again....

Sorry I haven't replied sooner, Drew - internet connexion went away last night. Yes, that's right about capital letters: our headers are not titles.

The okinas look very nice...

So no Kings in titles any more? Thanks, Hayford. Ro Thorpe 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're lucky your connection only goes down once in awhile. I'm sharing internet with my neighboors (legally, I pay a third of the bill) but the router is located in their house, so I get the shaft sometimes. I can only reliably get a connection at night.Drew R. Smith 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What a drag! Ro Thorpe 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm done with this article. Would you look over it and see if anything really stands out to you?Drew R. Smith 01:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nutters

It seems to me that in lotsa Brit thrillers the bad guys (usually, but occasionally the good guys) are always trying to use "nutters" to incapacitate the other guy. I guess that in 'Merkin this would be known as a "head butt" but one doesn't see it very often in fiction, just in rasslin'. (And related uses, like "He nutted me," or "He tried to nut me.") If you said in 'Merkin that someone gave me a nutter, the other person would probably be puzzled, then decide that you had been kicked in the crotch (crutch, as per an earlier discussion.) Whaddya think, old myte? Hayford Peirce 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've seen, particularly in the John Brock books, phrases like, "I was desperate, so I gave him a nutter." "He tried to nut me." "He nutted me and I staggered back." In 'Merkin-type books, "head butt" would be used in all cases, I think, BUT I don't think it's used much in our more manly, hehe, type of fightin', at least not in the books I myself tend to read. I suppose it's possible that Matt Helm, in the clutches of a 400-lb. giant, gives him a head butt to break his nose, but it would be a rare occurence. At least in the books that *I* read....

As for Andy, he has a *long* ways to go to catch up to Fred. But, even so, it's still remarkable. Read the Fred Perry article, most of which I did -- old Jack Kramer sure doesn't have a good word to say for him, except that he was one of the six best who ever lived. And that he destroyed a couple of generations of English forehands.... Hayford Peirce 23:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's just 60s slang and no more, we'll forget about it. But just about the time I discovered John Brock, I rented a telly for a month so that I could watch the Wimbledon Fortnight of 1968. My distinct recollection is that Jack was on one channel, babbling away as only a 'Merkin TV sportscaster can babble, and Fred was on the other, commercial channel, I think, saying about two words per set. I certainly didn't listen to it on the radio, so, at least for that one year, he was definitely on the telly. As I went for my evening stroll tonight, I pondered how to best rewrite the Fred article -- the cretins at WP have left their paw marks all over it.... Hayford Peirce 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably start by just moving some stuff around -- the WP cretins always want things in newspaper-type format, so the context vanishes and things that *I* think are important get dumped off into some separate section down at the bottom. Please feel free to jump in once I get going, which will probably be later today. Hayford Peirce 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

CZ: Naming conventions

Ro, the deletion of the text you restored was vetted on the talk page. Please restore. Thanks. Russell D. Jones 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fora and Fauna

Heaux, eaux Rheaux! Yer ryte, myte, you do not exist at the Fora. But this is a privilege, not a ryte, hehe. Being a member of CZ does not *automatically* make you a member of the Fora. For that you have to register all over again. But it's easy, I think. (I just deleted someone named "Nemesis" who joined a couple of hours ago.)

Just go to the Fora main space and click on register. Then put in your correct name, ie, Ro Thorpe and your email address. THEN at some point, maybe right away, follow these boilerplate instructions that I am always giving to new members:

Welcome aboard! To conform to our rules for participants in these Forums, would you kindly go to the little tab in the middle of this page that says Profile, then go to Forum Profile Information on the left side of the screen (under MODIFY PROFILE), then scroll on down to the bottom of the screen and where it says Signature, and put in something more or less like:

My CZ user page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Your_CZName

This will enable your profile to be easily viewed by anyone who reads one of your messages here in the Forums. And thereby enables us, up to a point, at least, to make some sort of initial judgment about how much credence/deference/respect/belief/etc./etc. to give to anything you happen to post since there are always new people joining our discussions....

Thanks!

That ought to get you in and running. Have fun! Hayford Peirce 15:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll transfer it, although you probably could with a cut and paste. Is it for the thread about Caps? Hayford Peirce 17:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, myte, ryte in the ryte plyce! It's just that it's on the top of *page two*. You gotta click on the little No. 1 at the middle top to go to the previous page.... Hayford Peirce 17:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie, those are good points that you make, and correct. Now, you gotta go back to your account and follow the instructions above so that your CZ link shows up at the bottom of your messages. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've arrived at the Custom Title: Signature box on the Profile Information page, don't you see a blank white box (not too big?). You ought to be able to paste into it:

My CZ user page:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Ro_Thrope

Or you could leave off the "My CZ user page" line -- it's the second one that's essential. Then save at the bottom of the page by clicking on "Change profile" Hayford Peirce 17:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Should my instructions be rewritten to make them clearer? This is the boilerplate I've been sticking into the Fora threads whenever someone shows up and doesn't put in a sig -- some of them don't *want* to do it (don't ask) but most of them don't seem to have much trouble doing it once they're goaded into actually doing so. But I'm sure that they could be clarified. If so, have a go at it -- I just keep an RTF file of the text that I paste in as necessary. Hayford Peirce 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input -- I'll see what I can do with it. I gotta say, I never originally spent much time writing these instructions, just threw them together more or less from memory.... Hayford Peirce 22:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Charter drafting committee

You've got my vote. Anyone who edits articles on Roland Kirk, Nico, and Howlin' Wolf is obviously a person of quality and distinction. Raymond Arritt 00:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Charter drafting candidacy

Hi Ro,

Thanks for accepting your nomination to be a candidate for election to the drafting committee for the Citizendium charter.

If you'd like, there is a provision in the plan that provides a place for you to compose a position statement. You are not required to do this in order to be a candidate for election to the committee, but it would be helpful to others during the voting period. Even if you don't compose a statement before the election period concludes, should you be elected it might be helpful for other members of the committee to know what you feel are the most important issues to address with the draft. You can find a red link to the page where you can write your statement here, along with instructions for doing so.

If you have any questions, just let me know. --Joe Quick 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Woof! Arf! Snuffle! Lick!

C'est moi, c'est moi, I blush to confess.... Aleta Curry 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

HUBO

Mr. Thrope, those were very nice edits. I don't know why I didn't catch them before. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

I'll swap you mine if you'll swop me yours

Don't the Brits write "swop" while we benighted Merkins write "swap"? On the other hand, we Merkins don't say, "Swap as in trap". Yours is definitely the winner in this match-up. Hayford Peirce 18:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

MW gives 'swop' as a chiefly British variant, Oxford redirects to 'swap' and puts 'swop' after it. Interesting one, I never was sure of it. Ro Thorpe 23:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the 'trap', see W#Use in English, para 5! Ro Thorpe 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ro, your letter pages are looking great. As to swop, I have never used that variant and always used swap. I grew up in the south of England, possibly it is used as swop in the north. I don't know though. Chris Day 17:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the encouragement, Chris. 'Swop' I associate with my London-suburb childhood, and I think for a time later I assumed it was incorrect, so I have the same habit as you. Incidentally, I only discovered your comment by chance at the bottom of the Recent changes page, there was no 'you have new messages' thing, strange... Ro Thorpe 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that is strange. Which skin are you using right now? I have noticed a few problems but I'm pretty sure that i get a new message notifications. Chris Day 19:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pinkwich5, the default one. I changed from the Wikipedia-like one 2-3 months ago: I must have had notifications with it. Ro Thorpe 19:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wot? Wat!

Sending a quick ‘hello’ out to all of you who wanted a weekend write-a-thon. Also, a nudge, push, and a shove to all those who haven’t made it out in a while. This Sunday, 10th January, is your Big Chance. Party theme is ‘stubs’. Now, what could be easier? Write about anything you want! (At least come on over and say ‘hi’—we’ve all been much too quiet lately and I rather miss everybody.) Aleta Curry 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks II

Thanks for the quick clean-up. I had actually meant "from the age of four", but it works the way you changed it anyhow. Cheers. --Mal McKee 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome.

Chris, and or anyone else who may be watching, I'm still not getting 'you have message' notifications with the Pinkwich skin (which I like too much to change). Ro Thorpe 23:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been using pinkwich after our last discussion, but then I forgot to note if I get the new message note or not. Can you leave me a note so I can check it.

While I'm here. Have there been any problems to your pages since Daniel and I added the misspellings options to the navigation tool? Chris Day 03:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No problems, thanks. Ro Thorpe 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) - Except for the colour, too much like retro. I've asked Daniel to change it. Ro Thorpe 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel Mietchen 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did a test and I do see the new message prompt at the top of my page. Chris Day 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I still don't get the prompt, strange. Instead I watch this page... Ro Thorpe 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't explain it. Possibly Daniel may have an inkling? Chris Day 17:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I also never noticed messages left for me under Pinkwich. Was one of the strongest reasons for me to avoid it ever since. --Daniel Mietchen 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the thing that drives me nuts about wiki's in general; possibly this holds true for all programming but this is my only experience. What we see on the screen depends so much on the browser and/or operating system. I guess this will not improve with time. Chris Day 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ro, that edit you made to the template was perfect. It should work fine. If it didn't at first it might be because of a cache issue with your computer. Chris Day 18:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That must be the reason; anyway, it's fine now. As you say above, '...drives me nuts...'! Ro Thorpe 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To hyphen or not to hyphen

Ro, what is your opinion on this: hyphen? --Peter Schmitt 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ~

Which is more readable, 'a multi-player game' or 'a multiplayer game'? I'd go for the former: the latter is too much like 'multiplier', plus the hyphen suggests a slight pause. Ro Thorpe 15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that I agree with Eaux Noble Rheault, for the reasons given. Hayford Peirce 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Definately "multiplayer" without the hyphen within the video games industry at least. Publishers, leading developer resource sites, leading game review sites, universities and just about everyone else in the indusry do not use a hyphen. --Chris Key 15:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, if people in the industry are comfortable with it, that trumps whatever Hayford & I think. C'est l'habitude! Ro Thorpe 16:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

caps on "the"

Hi, Rheaux! I had a long argument at WP years ago on the Kingston Trio page, but lost. Hmm, that discussion is now apparently gone. Anyway, I said, and still say, that in the middle of a sentence it is "the Kingston Trio," "the Weavers", etc. That is the way the NYT does it. It is *also* the way that the Kingston Trio themselves referred to themselves on ALL their early record covers. I have them all, so I know. At some point, however, at least the K-Trio had themselves *registered* as The Kingston Trio, with a Cap on the The. So all the WP imbeciles now use the cap with, at least, them. The last time one of them died, however, the NYT still used the lower case. I think that in our own Kingston Trio article I mention this. I don't think that I have any Weaver albums in which the The is in caps. I feel pretty confident that most manuals of style will back me up on this. Hayford Peirce 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your remarks about 'WP imbeciles' have been ringing in my ears. I didn't think you would be willing to engage them again, but mention of the Holy Chicago reminded me of Meg, and perhaps she'll be in the mood to put the boot in. No sooner do I make the point & get a couple of people to agree with me, then along comes someone promising a survey, ready to sacrifice literacy on the altar of bogus democracy! Ro Thorpe 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how yer ancient ticker can stand the pace over there -- my blood pressure was probably twice as high during the time I wuz there.... I *know* that I had this *lengthy* argument somewhere over there, citing album after album, source after source, all to no avail.... Don't Let the Bastards Grind You Down! Hayford Peirce 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)