Talk:Yuri Bosco

It's a bit of a stretch to call this a translated page really. A fair amount is new. But the Russian article did provide the framework. Herostratus (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yuri Bosco. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.kultura-portal.ru/tree_new/cultpaper/article.jsp?number=662&rubric_id=203

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar dispute

There's a passage "In 1956 he was graduated from the Saint Petersburg Art and Industry Academy". An editor User:Editrite!, is wanting to remove the "was", thus rendering the passage as "In 1956 he graduated from the Saint Petersburg Art and Industry Academy", and is insisting.

It's my understanding is that either is correct, and its not encouraged to change grammar to one's own preference when it was correct before, and certainly not to insist. Per WP:BRD the editor is invited to make his case here and gain consensus. Herostratus (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear and start with the full story, not one third of the story. There were three edits in question, not one, and two have been resolved appropriately, so far. The English language (or any language for that matter), works best with succinct expression i.e. minimum words for maximum expression or effect. As long as the meaning is conveyed clearly, that's what matters. Why use more words than you need to (just ask Wikipedia about bandwidth)? There are some verbs that need "was" or "is", or variations thereof added, and there are some that don't grammatically. "Graduated" is not one that does. Editrite! (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure those two were fine, and thanks Editrite!. But for the was/not was thing it depends on who you talk to I guess. You do see "graduated" a lot but it's an exception to the general rule that "was" is added for things done to you (was killed, was appointed) as opposed to thing you do yourself (come, see, conquer). We don't say "she elected Congress" altho we could and the meaning'd be clear enough. For whatever reason nobody says "she taken hostage" but they do say "she graduated", I don't know why. But as an exception it grates on me personally a little bit, so I wrote it the other way and it's not a mistake, so I'd say leave it as it was. It's not important. It's not necessary to squeeze every single word out every time.

Oh here is a thing about it. I don't really know what "transitive" is and all that, but it says people use both, and we mostly use a descriptive rather than prescriptive rubric nowadays, for grammar, so that means either is correct. Herostratus (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Food for thought. The English Wikipedia has over six million articles and counting. If each article has an average of only one unnecessary (extra) word, and I've seen many with more than that, that's over six million words, which is an awful lot of bandwidth and therefore cost (for a non profit). Editrite! (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, but storage and bandwidth are so cheap now. I asked the developers about that once (in regard to images, which are a lot bigger than a word) and they said not to worry about it. I think thee's an essay explaining this somewhere.

I'd be more concerned about the effect on the reader -- each extra word is a tiny bit of extra work to read. Tiny, but adds up over thousands of readers. But not a lot even then... hmmm. Herostratus (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

And here's another thing. There's unlikely to be a consensus, considering the previous post on this talk page is over five years old and was from a bot. The existing way is apparently old fashioned or outdated, and consequently less common. By the way, I agree that bandwidth (or anything else, for that matter) is cheap, if it's not your money. Editrite! (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well right. And I'm sure you're going to find the issue at other articles. So if it's worth discussing, it should probably be at the WP:MOS manual of style talk page. Maybe there could be a rule about it. I don't know if its old fashioned, but if it is, so. And worrying about bandwidth really is not supposed to constrain us in any way when we write. A better point would be the "omit needless words" argument re Strunk & White, see Wikipedia:Principle of some astonishment which would support that -- altho it is only an essay. You might be able to get a consensus over at MOS. Herostratus (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"Needless" and unnecessary mean the same thing (see my Food for thought post above). Editrite! (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)