Jump to content

User talk:Alarics/Archive 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


January Metro

Simply south (talk) and their tree 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkspam

I noticed you'd removed some linkspam which looked like this: "Parents are encouraged to be actively involved in their children's school life by joining a Parent-Teacher Association or Fathers@Schools group."

I found some more at another article on education. Is there a way to search for and delete such links by bot? I'm not a very advanced editor, I'm afraid. Brythain (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know much about bots. I just fix such things when I come across them. In any case, you have to judge each case on its merits, not clear how a bot could do that. -- Alarics (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The linkspam in this case has exactly the same wording, though. It seems to be inserted in several education articles.Brythain (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh well in that case just copy a character string from that wording and put it in the search box to find all the articles containing it. -- Alarics (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Old Etonians to become "Alumni of Eton College"?

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Germany and Central Europe

German encyclopedia of Brockhaus is edited by an "official" academic scientists scholars. Britannica is edited by academics. Both "natonal" encyclopedias are used officially as a reliable sources for semantical problems in trials at courts. Other sources hadn't such official status. Therefore you use unoffical/unscientific opinions. I think an encyclopedia must contain only official scientific facts rather than private/obsolete (subjective statements) opinions. You believe in obsolete political Cold War terms rather than geographic/cultural terms. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Hemisferio_Oeste.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldka (talk • contribs) 11:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not as straightforward as that. Many reliable sources could be found stating that Germany is in Western Europe. That's not to say that it is not (at least partly) in Central Europe as well. There is no hard and fast dividing line between the two, and clearly the concepts overlap. That's why on balance it seems best to say that it is in both. -- Alarics (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you for cleaning up the referencing. It's not going unnoticed, and I am trying to take it all into account. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

March Metro

Better late than never. Simply south...... 22:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

UK revert

On retrospect your revert of my addition of GB to the United Kingdom article was the right thing to do. Even if the British Olympic commitee did make a bit of a hash of it when they named the United Kingdom squad 'team GB' should not mean we make the same mistake. Oh, and thanks for mentioning that it was a good faith edit, as it was. :) Carson101 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- Alarics (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Beatles" versus "the Beatles"

There is currently a vote taking place and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

ProveIt accessdate

Sorry, disregard my previous comment. I didn't realize it was a new issue. I'll follow up on the ProveIt talk page. Superm401 - Talk 02:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Chiltern Railways

Please read WP:HYPHEN, which states "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". I am following the MoS to the letter. Almost every style guide in the world advises against the use of a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb, and the MoS has been this way for years and years. There is zero chance that you will convince me that hyphenating "wholly owned" is the way to go. Please abide by the MoS. And, no, I didn't read your edit summary; there is no requirement to study an article's revision history when there are clear errors to correct. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The MOS is simply wrong on this specific case, but we'll have to agree to differ. -- 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Facebook

I have revised my input to accommodate your concerns. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

see relevant diff @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Facebook&action=historysubmit&diff=424522218&oldid=424449695 . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ERA DB distributed traction

Hello Alarics, thanks for your edits to the CTRL article to tidy up the links to DB's press page. A couple of days ago I posted a formatted cite/note for the original report at Talk:Channel Tunnel#Technical opinion of ERA regarding the conclusions of the IGC, but haven't had a chance to write it up yet. Perhaps it's useful! —Sladen (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, more detail on this issue will indeed be more appropriate there than in High Speed 1 where arguably it doesn't belong. I just happen to have High Speed 1 on my watchlist and noticed the latest edit needed cleaning up. Maybe move all to Channel Tunnel? -- Alarics (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

St Pancras

Thanks very much for your note about the endless St Pancras renaming debate. I think I might just let it take its course: we will still be able to find it, whatever it is called, and I can't get too concerned about it. I mostly got involved in the talk page just because I was rather appalled by the IP's rude and aggressive behaviour, and their unhelpful C&P redirects. As long as whatever happens happens properly, I think it's fine. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in the context of eternity it is not the most pressing concern. However I think I may be able to find a WP:RS confirming that "St Pancras International" is indeed the official name, for what it's worth. I agree with you about the IP but there is also another especially vociferous editor who refuses to countenance any compromise, even when several editors clearly disagree with him or her, and that annoys me too. -- Alarics (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, and fair enough. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

KarlMathiessen

You report that User:KarlMathiessen has been banned. I could not find any evidence for this. Where did you get this from? Tomeasy T C 11:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe they were blocked as socks? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
If so, I would expect a notice on their user page, but there is nothing. Besides, block and ban are not the same.
Is there anything substantial you base your believe on? Tomeasy T C 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Memory. And found it. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lear 21. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wonder why they are not tagging the user pages ... Tomeasy T C 12:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is tagged at his User contributions page, which is where I accidentally found it. I didn't know blocked was different from banned and I have changed my message on Talk:Germany accordingly. -- Alarics (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Athwart

While the distinction in meaning is noted, it is important that an encyclopaedia inform its readership, not bewilder it. The term, although technically not as obsolete as I first believed, has fallen out of common use to the extent that most well educated, native English speakers are unfamiliar with it. I don't intend repeating the exercise (you can find it in the archive of WP:ERRORS for the day when Peterborough was TFA, or the eve of that day), but google searches for many major English rivers + athwart drew a blank or had a mere handful of hits. The same impression, clarifying that the town is not merely on one bank of the river, could be achieved in less technical language by stating that the river runs through the town. Kevin McE (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May Metro

Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Michael P. Fay

his notability is over SG. But i suppose we should get s a third opinion on its nature.Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Crossrail

Thank you very much for your patience! I think this one is absolutely spot on. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Alarics (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Date formats

Hello Alarics, i think you mean Reflinks rather than Checklinks when you're talking about changing the YYYY-MM-DD format. It is possible to use different settings on reflinks so no accessdate is added. I would try to remember that when changing the Facebook article though it seems easier to use the format the bots are using, rather than having to manually convert all the dates to a longer format, happy editing Tom B (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was only using Facebook as an example. I am not concerned with that article alone but with the principle of getting the bot to respect the style being used in any given article. Otherwise it creates a lot of extra work for those of us who are trying to maintain consistency of presentation. -- Alarics (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
but a lot of articles use YYYY-MM-DD, to have consistency you'd have to go through the whole of wikipedia changing all the date. Surely it would be easier to use the YYYY-MM-DD format using the various tools, rather than using the tools to help fill-in the references and then changing the all date formats for no reason. Tom B (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
But another lot of articles do NOT use YYYY-MM-DD, and many editors greatly dislike it (there has been intense debate on this issue at MOSNUM and elsewhere over a long period). The important requirement is to be consistent *within each article* (nobody supposes that we are ever going to get standardisation across the whole of Wikipedia). Where the article already consistently has the dates in a different format, it should respect that format. That's my point. (Just to be clear: when I came upon the Facebook article, the references were a terrible mess, full of inconsistencies and inadequacies of all kinds. Many dates, including some access dates, were in MDY as befits an article on an American subject, and for the sake of consistency I changed the ones that were in YYYY-MM-DD to MDY.) -- Alarics (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) MOS:DATEUNIFY allows either: "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed so. However, the bot in this particular instance put the publication dates in YYYY-MM-DD as well as the access dates. We are not talking here about access dates alone. Even if access dates are in YYYY-MM-DD -- which in the present instance, only some were -- the publication dates should not be. -- Alarics (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Facebook GAR

An article that you have been involved in editing, Facebook has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Human rights in Singapore

Alarics, thanks on your contribution in the article Human rights in Singapore. Your fixing made my minor addition relevant [1], with the link to more data. Discussion of the topic: Talk:Human rights in Singapore. Watti Renew (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

{{cite news}}

It is not true that it should always be "work" and not "publisher" for the Template:Cite news. The former italicises the text provided, so should be used for newspapers and magazines. Online, television, and other sources that are not italicised take the "publisher" parameter. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Who says so? Why should online news sources not also be italicised? There is no logic in making such a distinction. -- Alarics (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
First, the answer is that MOSCAPS says so. There is no accepted style guide that says website names are italicised, and our doesn't include it either. If we accepted your position, this project would be called Wikipedia, but it is nowhere, not on the web or in print, italicised. If you are linking to an article at guardian.co.uk, you can simply say it is the The Guardian, so long as it is not just a web feature, but you never italicise a web address such as "guardian.co.uk", unless it happens to be the name of a book or television show or the like. -Rrius (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I completely disagree. I agree we would not italicise Wikipedia, but that is because it is not a news site, so you have chosen an irrelevant example. Nobody has ever suggested, as far as I know, that all website names should be italicised. I am talking only about news sources. guardian.co.uk is a bit of a special case because quite a lot of its articles are on the web only, and you can tell which because each article has a clickable "Article history" feature that tells you whether or not it appeared in the printed paper as well, or only on the website. In the former case I would put "The Guardian" in italics. It makes no sense at all not to italicise guardian.co.uk when putting that instead of "The Guardian" in the case where the article appears on the website only. The website describes itself as guardian.co.uk: that is its actual name (formerly Guardian Unlimited). More generally, the proper distinction is not between websites and the printed media, but between recognised news sources (whether printed or online or both), which should be italicised, and other kinds of sources, whether online or not, which should not be italicised. Any other scheme is completely illogical. I don't know why you mention MOSCAPS, which has nothing to say on this subject. The documentation for "cite news" makes clear that the "publisher" parameter is intended for use only in the rare case where the reference is to a small or obscure local newspaper which is part of a larger group or chain of newspapers. Indeed, a proposal to remove that parameter altogether is under discussion as we speak. -- Alarics (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. "guardian.co.uk" is a url and the name of a webpage, not the title of a work. If you want to cite to the newspaper, you call it The Guardian. If you want to highlight that it is the website, you don't italicise. I know you don't like it, but that is too bad. There is simply no authority for italicising online sources. It is never BBC News; rather, it is BBC News. You also for some reason italicised "Transport for London", which makes no sense whatever: Transport for London is an transport agency, not a press agency of any kind. -Rrius (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You are being very careless with the facts. It was certainly not I who italicised "Transport for London" in Metropolitan line, something it would never occur to me to do. I entirely agree with your edit in that particular case: clearly, Transport for London is the publisher. That reference was not a news citation, and, as I said before, my concern about "publisher" being used when it should be "newspaper" or "work" applies only to news sources, and in particular to the use of the "cite news" template. As for your statement that "it is never BBC News", I am afraid you are going to have a lot of work to do if you propose to de-italicise all the occurrences of italicised "BBC News" in news references across Wikipedia. In reality it is very often BBC News, and should always be, in my view. -- Alarics (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple newspapers

I must say this is the first time anyone has ever accused me of slighting anything involving Africa. I am well aware there are multiple newspapers, radio stations, TV stations, books, people and so forth, sharing the same or similar names. At Wikipedia, if one usage is the major usage, the others have qualifiers or descriptors added in parentheses, but the major one does not. It's the assumed default. It's not necessary to use 'Aljazeera (Qatar)', for instance, even though that's hardly a unique name. It's also not necessary to use 'The Guardian (newspaper)' just because there was a 2006 film with that name. The Guardian is one of the major international news sources. Beyond that...the newspaper you referred to isn't listed at Guardian (disambiguation). It doesn't have its own article, either. Neither is there an article about Media in Tanzania (one of the many articles redlinked in Outline_of_Tanzania#Culture_of_Tanzania). If you look at IPP Media you can see they have other properties with names similar to some major international ones. You'll find similar in several former British colonies, but it doesn't mean people are in danger of assuming The Financial Times, if not further described, isn't the international one. My point is...if your goal is to recognize all countries equally, the way to do that is to work on articles, not add cities to existing newspaper articles which don't need them. This might help you get started. Flatterworld (talk) (btw - I created a redirect for The Guardian (Tanzania) to IPP Media, so if someone uses it, it won't be a redlink.) 17:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we are slightly at cross-purposes. I was not talking about Wikipedia articles about newspapers, only about the use of the newspaper's name in references in articles generally. Whether or not there is a Wikipedia article about the newspaper itself is quite a separate issue. In the case of articles about newspapers, clearly there is no pressing need to disambiguate the most important one with a particular name, since the reader of the article, if he has already got that far, can see from the article where it is published. But if we are talking about a reference in some other article, the reader in Tanzania cannot be assumed to know that the The Guardian referred to is a publication other than the one of that name with which he is familiar. I should imagine that many Wikipedia editors are likely to know that 'The Guardian is one of the major international news sources' and that that means the one in London unless otherwise stated, but we are writing for our readers, not for ourselves, and we are supposed to be encouraging readers in the less-developed world (and furthermore whose first language might not be English). The guidelines for the "cite news" template at Template:Cite news should, in my view, be taken in this respect to apply to news citations generally, and they say unambiguously that the name of the city of publication should be included if it is not part of the name of the newspaper. -- Alarics (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, if you want to help readers from, or interested in, Tanzania, there are lots of ways to do that. This is not actually one of them. If there is some particular article you have a problem with (this Template is only used within External links - this is NOT connected with "cite news" usage which is intended for inline citations), then add '(London)' after using the Template and it will show up just fine. Or hardcode it instead. That's what I would do for the other Aljazeera and Le Monde and Financial Times etc. articles. No need to impact all the others by changing the Template itself. Flatterworld (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You are still misconstruing my point. I am not setting out to "help readers from Tanzania"; that is not my purpose at all. I mentioned Tanzania only because it happens to have a newspaper called The Guardian. My point is that the names of newspapers should always be given with the city of publication, unless that place is already part of the newspaper's name, and that not to do so in the particular case of a London paper (the same applies to The Times and The Daily Telegraph) is unjustifiably Western-centric. -- Alarics (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And I'm saying you're incorrect in your interpretation of External link guidelines, and this has nothing to do with being Western-centric. As I pointed out, we do NOT use Aljazeera (Qatar) on a routine basis, or BBC (London), or Wall Street Journal (New York City), or Financial Times (London) as those are unnecessary as well as condescending. Most people are familiar with these news sources, as they're read and watched internationally. It's the basic principle of when disambiguation is required, and when it is not, and that's not limited to specific disambiguation pages. It's about when qualification is needed, and when it is not. There are multiple George Washingtons, but when providing a quote or reference it's not considered necessary, or even desirable, to include (former President of the United States) after his name UNLESS it's actually someone else. The well known one is assumed to be the default. Same with The Guardian. Furthermore, WHAT qualification is needed is important. What's important in a source used in an External link is NOT the city, but a link to its article within Wikipedia, enabling readers unfamiliar with the source to learn more about it. 'City' is a minor point when we're referring to an INTERNATIONAL news source as opposed to, say, the Gainesville, Florida, USA Guardian). What's more relevant is whether it's a serious news source, a scandal sheet, the publisher, the editor, etc., all of which and more will be found within the Wikipedia article about the news source. If someone isn't aware the Guardian is based in London, I can't imagine they know anything else important about it, and so they really do need to click through to the article. Why on earth would it help simply to know it's based in London? Which is why I'm irritated no end with Wikipedians who REFUSE to link to the source's article in Wikipedia, if they include the source at all. (As well as those who seem to believe dates don't matter, nor do the names of the actual journalists as if they're all interchangeable automatons. Which in some news sources they seem to be.) Which is why I prefer using 'topic coverage' templates for External links, which also discourage endless minor articles being linked in External links which belong, if at all, as inline citations for whatever they're reporting. There are a few major international newspapers which collect all their coverage by Topic, and those are generally worth listing. The Guardian is one of those. Flatterworld (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I agree you about dates, and the names of journalists. I am particularly exercised by people who put an access date for an online newspaper reference but not the publication date, which is far more significant. On the rest, we shall have to agree to differ. -- Alarics (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Three out of four isn't bad. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alarics. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Midland Main Line

Hi Alarics, changing {{reflist}} might have got the references to display, but not the following navboxen. The RDT has been amended recently, and it looks like it has tipped the balance, so I've stopped it transcluding (now a regular wikilink). I think that mjroots (talk · contribs) did something with the East Coast Main Line, but with a two level template. This probably needs to go to UK Trains, but it's gone time for bed (reply here if you wish). Tim PF (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Midland Main Line RDT. Tim PF (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I'm afraid the technicalities of this are all quite beyond me. I thought at first it must be a WP-wide temporary problem but then it seemed not to be, so I just did the only "quick and dirty" fix that I could think of, but, as you say, it only partly worked. Thanks for taking the problem to the appropriate quarter. -- Alarics (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I think you did the right thing in the circumstances, and I probably wouldn't have noticed had I not seen your edit summary. Two kludges should keep it afloat until a precis template gets written. Tim PF (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in United Kingdom

Hi, I just wanted to discuss a sentence in the lead of the UK article. The sentence in question now reads 'It is a member state of the European Union, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, G8, G20, the OECD, the Council of Europe, the World Trade Organization and NATO.'

In my view the word 'the' which appears before 'Commonwealth of Nations' also prefixes G8, G20, OECD, Council of Europe and World Trade Organization', all of which do require the word 'the' before them when appearing in prose. The word 'the' can in my view be omitted from before OECD, Council of Europe and World Trade Organization because the 'the' before Commonwealth of Nations is already prefixed to them. This is why I moved 'NATO' to the end of the sentence, so it can be broken off that prefixing with the 'and'. I hope this makes sense! Rangoon11 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon, I see what you mean, but while you can certainly do that with adjectives, I don't think you can do it with nouns, such as the names of organisations. I can't find Fowler at this minute, and the matter is not covered one way or the other in the Oxford Guide to the English Language, but I just asked my friend next door, who is a professional linguist, and he agrees with me that each separate "the" is necessary. -- Alarics (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I wondered if you had managed to find a definitive answer on this point yet? If the word 'the' is in fact required each time it should probably be added before 'G8' and 'G20' as well, as they also don't read properly without (i.e. we wouldn't say 'the UK is a member of G8', rather 'the UK is a member of the G8'). Rangoon11 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Can't find Fowler. The versions of it that are free on line (Google Books) only include certain pages. It will have to wait till I go to the library, unless you can find it, or something equally authoritative. But meanwhile yes, you are right, I think G8 and G20 should also have a "the". I will fix it right away. -- Alarics (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

Did we get the crossed wires of simultaneous editing here? You seem to have unlinked a few things (the GLC, the GLA, the British Transport Commission) which aren't linked anywhere else in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Classic case of edit conflict. I pasted my edits back in with (as I thought) your edits preserved, but carelessly missed those ones. Apologies. I have fixed it now. -- Alarics (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

July Metro

Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check please

Former Alvirne High School coach's conviction

I have made another effort to Wikify the reference about the former Alvirne High School coach who was convicted of assault and sexual assault after he padded students for his own sexual gratification. I am not an expert Wikipedia editor so if my latest effort to Wikify this reference is not adequate then please provide me with a detailed explanation of why its is not adequate. Thank you. AnnaBennett (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Alarics (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Corporal punishment is still legal in the state of New Hampshire (but not in its public schools). See New Hampshire Criminal Code, Title LXII, "Section 627:6, Physical Force by Persons With Special Responsibilities. – I. A parent, guardian or other person responsible for the general care and welfare of a minor is justified in using force against such minor when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or punish such minor's misconduct".
This may be how the Alvirne High School coach initially justified his actions. AnnaBennett (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

August Metro

Simply south...... unintentionally mispelling fr 5 years So much for ER 18:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP Schools in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Schools for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

September Metro

Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Singapore

I think http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=66 and http://yesterday.sg/national-history/little_red_dot_a_short_story_by_mok_ly_yng/ will help on those two terms. There is an article also about the Little red dot. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

November Metro

Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 01:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC).


"Companies are singular"

You made an edit to an article with the summary companies are singular, so "its services", not "their services". While I agree, a company is generally a singular entity, British English tends to groups as plurals - for instance, you would say "Radiohead are a band...", not "Radiohead is a band...". It does depend on the circumstances a bit admittedly - I would agree with the phrasing "it [CrossCountry] was formed...", but would say that "CrossCountry recently extended their services..." would be the preferable phrasing, rather than "CrossCountry extended its services". -mattbuck (Talk) 18:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think rock bands are analogous. A rock band is a group of individual persons, so the plural makes sense. A limited company is not a group of persons but a single legal entity in its own right. "CrossCountry extended their services" may be acceptable in casual speech, but it is wrong in the formal written style, which is what we use for writing an encyclopaedia. -- Alarics (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alarics/Archive_2011&oldid=1146026770"