Jump to content

User:Sojourner001/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia surveys

[edit]

Ad hoc surveys

[edit]
  • Proper English Spelling:

I decided to take a survey to get everyone's opinion.

Each is broken down below. You can add further spelling to discuss/debate.

1. "ize" vs "ise":

Pro "ize": According to the Oxford English dictionary, the "ize" was the original in British and the standard, because it came from Latin and Greek. "ise" was introduced into England recently and comes from France. See here for the below quote:
"However, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is hence often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism,[23] despite being preferred by some authoritative British sources, including Fowler's Modern English Usage and the Oxford English Dictionary, which until recently did not list the -ise form of many individual words, even as an alternative. Indeed, it firmly deprecates this usage, stating, "[T]he suffix…, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."[24] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[25]"
I believe it is our job to follow the dictionary writers, as they are the ones that created/standardize spelling. Anything else would be non-encyclopedic and fanbase opinion. Furthermore, I believe it is proven above that it is French English, not British English, and thus counts under slang so is inappropriate for Wikipedia based on standardizing the English. SanchiTachi 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Pro "-ise": Reason moved to talk page. Darkson - BANG! 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Pro "-ise": Games Workshop media is published by a British company who use British standard english and since these articles are entirely about this product, UK standard spelling should carry into the articles in all cases. Sojourner001 16:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Oxford English Dictionary, a verifiable source, has stated that the "ize" is the proper British spelling, so your reasoning would not distinguish between either. The "ise" comes from France, so it is not British. It is considered slang by the dictionary, so would not follow under "standard." SanchiTachi 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2. "o" vs "ou"

Pro either: According to the same page above
"Derivatives and inflected forms. In derivatives and inflected forms of the -our/or words, in British usage the u is kept before English suffixes that are freely attachable to English words (neighbourhood, humourless, savoury) and suffixes of Greek or Latin origin that have been naturalised (favourite, honourable, behaviourism); before Latin suffixes that are not freely attachable to English words, the u can be dropped (honorific, honorist, vigorous, humorous, laborious, invigorate), can be either dropped or retained (colo(u)ration, colo(u)rise), or can be retained (colourist).[18] In American usage, derivatives and inflected forms are built by simply adding the suffix in all environments (favorite, savory, etc.) since the u is absent to begin with."
I feel that in such situations, both should be tolerated, as both are tolerated. SanchiTachi 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Anti either, Pro "-our": Reason moved to talk page. Darkson - BANG! 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


I moved the discussion over to the talk page to clean this up so its a standard up down vote here. Please go to Here for the Discussion.

Ongoing Wikipedia surveys

[edit]

Votes for deletion

[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Warhammer 40,000

  • Keep Because they are two different pages. The spelling matters and the error has obviously sent a few to a blank page by mistake. To delete it would only cause problems. Redirect pages are -always- good as long as they go to the right place. SanchiTachi 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright but I think that all attempts should be made to link to the former page with all of the information on it. I have moved all of the links on other pages to the one with the information Pterodactal 09:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
SanchiTanchi: while "Redirect pages are -always- good" is a general starting point, it certainly is policy that a number of classes of redirects are deleted, including redirects from unlikely typos as I believe Weapons, Equipment, and Vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) would count as. One of the main reason for this is to reduce "noise" in search results: for example, try searching Wikipedia for "weapons vehicles eldar" and note how it's not as clear as may be desired. Pterodactal: it is not necessary to change links to redirects to a link to the redirected article; please read don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken --Pak21 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you might as well destroy any redirect page that has it in a plural form, an unplural form, or a british alternative, etc. If a "s" or a "u" counts towards staying, then -my vote- is the above stays. There is no argument and I will not change my mind. I vote as stay. Also, you know the difference -is- a comma between the two. It may easily be mistaken and dropped when someone researches for it in the user browser, which -many- people do. SanchiTachi 17:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not the policy; (un)plural forms and alternative spellings are likely search terms/typos and as such the above does not apply. As for the "user browser", I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Cheers --Pak21 17:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A user browser is firefox or internet explorer. I am losing patience with you. You seem unable to understand that variations of spelling -do- matter and must be linked together. Plural versions and unplural versions have -always- had a redirect page, as with alternative spellings and the like. This is more than the 5th time that you misrepresented Wikipedia. I am tired of it. I will not let you bully this group around or delete things that are part of standard Wikipedia function because YOU thought that you were some god that people should worship and take every word as divine truth. SanchiTachi 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent to attempt to regain an encyclopedic focus). I do not believe that it is likely that a user will type in the exact string "Weapons, Equipment, and Vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)" into the URL box of their browser. What other ways are you suggesting that this redirect could be reached? Cheers --Pak21 21:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
By your rational, I don't think its usual for someone to type in anything that has plurals with it or the like. Therefore, we should remove any redirect page like that, right? You are going against presidence and you don't have an actual point. SanchiTachi 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see no reason to delete it. --Falcorian (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It is far more likely that someone will type in (eg) "Necron" when looking for the Necrons article than they will type in "Weapons, Equipment, and Vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)". I am fully aware of the precedents, and particularly refer you to Should extremely rare typo redirects be kept?. I am still curious as to exactly how you think this redirect would ever be found by a reader. Falcorian, basically the only reason for deleting this redirect is to tidy up the search results: see the link I gave above, which I'm sure people would agree is non-optimal (although I am well aware of the possible software changes which may make this redundant). Cheers --Pak21 07:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I still see no reason. Messy search result seem to be a symptom of bad software on Wiki's part, and not simply multiple redirects. Further, I don't see how getting a page of redirects is a bad thing, as clicking any of those links takes you to the right place. I'm of the same mind as SanchiTachi, I don't think more redirects are a bad thing. --Falcorian (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*shrug* I fail to see any way at all in which anyone would ever end up at the redirect rather than the real thing, but it doesn't really matter if it stays. --Pak21 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does Weapons, etc etc of Craftworld Eldar have the disambig "Warhammer 40,000" attached? Is ther likely to be that much confusion between this article and ... GraemeLeggett 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I talked to an admin, and the admin said that the rest of the title should be lowercased. I think we should have a discussion about naming (in general) and decide whether to change all appropriate titles to lowercase or what. Could someone look up the appropriate rules for long names? SanchiTachi 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I saw the Necron one had the Disambig part at the end - I moved it to remove the end part. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the naming convention article Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words_in_titles and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Case_sensitivity_and_searching, and I think both should be read and reviewed.

Gee I've opened a can of worms here. What about Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_deletion#capitalizationon the WP:RfD page. I have also looked at a search for weapons of the eldar and it came up with 152 results. Who about i put it on WP:RfD and see what is thought of it there? Pterodactal 09:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe those that you linked agree with me. I use the browser bar, not the search, to move between pages. I have dialup, and it saves me the three step process to get to a page. As you can see, I'm not the only one. SanchiTachi 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sojourner001/sandbox&oldid=1140441849"