User talk:Garik/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Garik. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Owain Glyndwr

Garik, thanks for the note. Basically it was changed because of my own ham-fistedness - not quite sure how to set up that feature where you can enable links with slightly differing versions of the same name (e.g. 'Isabel ferch Gruffudd' and 'Isabel ferch Gruffudd Fychan' will both wind up taking you to the same page). If I had known had to do this, I would have done it for the 'Isabel ferch Gruffudd' page (which I wrote a few days ago), thus enabling the red link for her name on the OG page. But I didn't, so it just seemed easier to change the OG page. I accept your point, though! - I ought to properly learn how to do edits... :-) Ynyrhesolaf (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just got the advice on how to do the above. Diolch met! Really appreciate it! Ynyrhesolaf (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Welsh Christians for deletion

The article List of Welsh Christians is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Welsh Christians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

quotation marks in Welsh

Looking at Non-English usage of quotation marks, I was interested that the table shows standard Welsh usage having single quotes as the primary symbol, with double quotes as secondary, in contrast to pretty much every other language listed. But the edit in which you added this a while back has a summary saying that it follows British English. Please could you check? Many thanks. Scil100 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I've now noticed that at the time you edited it, it did indeed show the same for British English, but that was wrong and has now been corrected. In view of this, I'm going to assume it's safe just to change the row for Welsh similarly. Scil100 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I believe standard UK English usage is for single quotes as primary and double as secondary. Take a look at book printed in the UK. garik (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's one that is bound to be pedantically careful about getting it right, and if you click "look inside", you'll see double quotes being used as primary. Likewise in copies of The Times and The Independent that I happen to have lying around (although I see that The Times uses single quotes in headlines). I have found some counter-examples, admittedly, but not in any publication likely to be sufficiently fussy about these things. Scil100 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I may be wrong, and will have to take a good look next time I have a lot of books to hand. Fowler, in The King's English, certainly suggested double quotes as primary and single as secondary, and he also mentioned the practice, which Lynne Truss promotes, of using single quotes also for isolated words and so on that are not true quotations. However, Fowler suggests only that some people do this, and I seem to recall that Lynne Truss implies that it's not a widely followed practice, but rather one she'd like to see used more. Now, to complicate matters further, it seems that when it came to Modern English Usage, Fowler expressed preference for single then double, describing the alternative (double as basic) as "clearly less reasonable", but expected that people would stick with double then single for the sake of conspicuousness. So clearly double was once preferred, and we should expect Lynne Truss to go with the more old fashioned style. There certainly remains much variation (and we have to distinguish between printed newspapers, printed books, and internet publications, since we can expect variation between all three). Now, I was under the impression that there was now a tendency, though not an absolute one, in British English publications for single-then-double. But this may be true only of printed books (and, apparently, newspaper headlines). We really need to find a good explicit source that's descriptive rather than prescriptive (unlike Lynne Truss). In any case, I remain pretty certain that Welsh usage follows British English usage, whatever that might be! Worth checking though (and I'm afraid I'm going to be moving overseas in a week or two, so am not in the best position to do the research, I'm afraid!) garik (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OED.com

Hi Garik, I saw your post on Great Britain, which provided the OED.com definitions of Britain (is that the subscription version?). I know it's a bit of a cheek, but would you mind doing the same for Country? A discussion on a possible article restructure is in progress there. I don't think OED online is good enough. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I followed Malleus's instructions and found it myself. Thanks anyway. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It is the subscription version. This is one advantage of being an academic... garik (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Supriyya?

May you please explain what these references are about re: the linguistics page? ElbowingYouOut (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just look through the talk page archives. garik (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The archives are way too long and dense for me to go through all of them. Could you kindly please not confuse me with some other user? This is bizarre. ElbowingYouOut (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Put it this way: you're not the first editor we've come across whose Wikipedia-related interests include Bollywood and arguing on the Linguistics Talk page. garik (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

SO? ElbowingYouOut (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sex and gender

If you're not still watching the Homosexuality article, I wanted to let you know that he's back making the same arguments, but tried to disguise them as slightly different, this time commenting as an IP. Just be on the lookout. Flyer22 (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Looks as if I missed most of the fun! garik (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I'm not so sure that it was the same person anymore. But whoever it was certainly did not take well to my stance/arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your help on Latin. DJDunsie (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. garik (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Lunar effect, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Assyrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorted. garik (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)