User talk:Define02

howdy

Welcome!

Hello, Define02, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hi Define02! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Richard Hammond several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Richard Hammond, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin,

Thank you for updating me on the code of conduct on Twitter. I am not well-accustomed with the convention so I appreciate that.

Though this does confuse me slightly, in that, you are able to revert my edits repeatedly without reprimand and yet when I follow suit, I appear to be made culpable for erroneous Wikipedia usage.

Nevertheless, I shall raise the dispute through the proper media and hopefully shall reach the correct conclusion. Define02 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Define, please refer to WP:BRD. You made a Bold edit; it was Reverted. Your next step should have been to Discuss (generally at the talk page of the page you are trying to edit). In this particular case, you made grammatical corrections that were not felt to be necessary. I could go either way on the comma: I might choose to use one or I might not, but I do agree that it is unnecessary in the specific context in question. Also, the question of whether it should be the trio have or the trio has is a question of different variants of English. In British English, collective nouns (such as trio) take plural verb endings, whereas in American English, collective nouns generally take singular verb endings. Since Wikipedia does not prefer one version of English over the other, changing things like this is generally unnecessary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably, the protocol I took may not have been the correct one.

However, in terms of your point on the variants of English, technically speaking trio is a singular (collective) noun and thusly would take the form of “has”, hence my change. The plural would be trios and would unequivocally take the form “have”. Though I’m happy to concede to “has” if, as you say, are variants in British vs American English, though I can’t say I’ve heard that before.

The comma however, I feel is a justifiable change. The clauses are not dependent on one another and the use of a comma is the best in terms of clarity, fluency and coherency. Define02 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence Since 2016 the trio have presented Amazon Studios' The Grand Tour, the phrase "Since 2016" is not a clause (neither dependent nor independent) because it does not contain a subject and a predicate. It is merely an adverbial phrase, and as such, does not require a comma to separate it from the rest of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow you about "code of conduct on Twitter", sorry. As someone who seems well-versed in writing clear edit summaries, I'm somewhat surprised that this is your first day of editing at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Martin, I did mean Wikipedia not Twitter. I’m not quite sure where I got Twitter from haha.

And I’m not quite sure whether to take that as a compliment or if the sarcasm has gone over my head, as this genuinely is my first day of Wikipedia editing. :) Define02 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take that as a huge compliment. I will try and add sarcasm marks where I intend it! You might be interested to voice your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Introductory commas. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Martin. Will only be a casual thing, raising issues as and when I see them, though it’s unlikely I’ll be actively looking for them. I shall definitely look into that Talk page to accustom myself with it. I appreciate the guidance. Regards Define02 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, Adverbial phrases very commonly use commas to separate themselves from the rest of the sentence. Think “Unfortunately, I will not be partaking” or “Sadly, the income was less than expected” and as you rightly point out, it’s an adverbial phrase or a disjunct and of course these are followed by commas. Hope this helps. Define02 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunct_(linguistics) This may be of use Define02 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]