User talk:Jeni/Archives/2010/October

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

Evesham GAC

Hi Jeni. Evesham is now nearing Good Article quality and will shortly be nominated for review. If you have anything to contribute than can improve its scope or quality, please do not hesitate to chip in.. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALLCAPS

See the examples that were approved, with consensus then at MOS:RJL. International consensus is to remove them, per MOS:ALLCAPS's guidance. WP:CONLIMITED says that WikProjects can't override a wider consensus. Ergo, the caps must go. Imzadi 1979 → 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any consensus to remove them at RJL. Jeni ^(talk) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. for a "retired" editor, you sure do edit a lot. Maybe you're just "semi-retired"? Imzadi 1979 → 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to stop this country from being Americanised! Jeni ^(talk) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Wikifying, not Americanizing to apply the internationally defined Manual of Style for the English Wikipedia. As for MOS:RJL, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (road junction lists)/Archive 7#UK proposal, which contains the comment: "Seems to work just fine... go for it :) Jeni (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)". Imzadi 1979 → 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical thing that the USRD cabal does, sneaks in little things like that with no mention. Jeni ^(talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the proposing comment: "It is basically the same table, brought into line with the MOS guidelines regarding italics, all caps, bold, and colors" (emphasis added). No sneaking involved. Imzadi 1979 → 23:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation already complies with ALLCAPS.

a) The guideline only states avoid.

b) The destinations in question *are* The NORTH, SOUTH WALES etc, they are regional destinations, that is how they are described

c) Nothing in the guideline suggests the current way of doing it is invalid.

Jeni ^(talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the MOS tells us that directions are not proper names and should not take a capital letter. As such, US articles can't use capital letters on directions for things like

M-28 east. That does not match the signs which use an initial capital letter on all directional banner plates. (Actually the plates are in small caps or all caps depending on which edition of the MUTCD is being referenced.) Wikipedia is not here to blindly copy how the signs are displayed, or else we'd just use graphics or photos of the junction signs in place of text. We're here to build an encyclopedia using a consistent style guideline, which is the MOS. Previous discussions, with notice of the proposed changes, resulted in a consensus to not use ALLCAPS in MOS:RJL. Imzadi 1979 → 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! *bangs head on wall* They are not directions! They are regional destinations! Please get the idea out of your head that they are directions. Jeni ^(talk) 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, and misread. The example was not for the direction aspect of the comparison. It was a comparison to a similar situation where text formatting on Wikipedia won't match the text formatting on the signs, also involving all caps. US and Canadian signs use directional banners that are either in all caps or small caps, yet when the signs' content is translated into the junction list in the article, they are rendered in lowercase to comply with the MOS. Your regional destinations are more analogous to Southern California, which is an exception to capitalizing directions, but not a direct exception to all caps guidance.

Now, the situation is that you previously agreed to a compromise proposal and are now complaining when other editors are following that compromise. I've demonstrated another situation where the text displayed on Wikipedia does not match the formatting on the signs, and you make a minor attack on my intelligence. You've assumed bad faith throughout this entire discussion, which feels like your modus operandi in any dealings with any editors from North America. Please stop those assumptions, as they aren't supported by the facts of the situation. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to presume that allcaps are bad under any situation and must never be used as the world will explode, yet its used for post town in the UK place infobox on thousands of articles? Right now it seems like you don't like it and you are trying every trick in the book to get UK articles to conform to US standards... ain't gonna happen! Jeni ^(talk) 03:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a concern about user conduct, please take it up to an appropriate venue such as WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U. Please refrain from making accusations of bad faith otherwise. --Rs chen 7754 23:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Talk:Cambridge, you may be blocked from editing. This edit goes against all principles of talk page discussions, especially WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:NPOV. Not to mention you spliced on to a horrendously weak and fallicious argument, one that blatantly ignored the guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Have a nice day! Purple backpack89 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it silly season? In the past few days I have seen some editors make bad judgement calls and this is another to add to the list. If you read Jeni's comment, her rationale was "per Mhockey", so she agrees that "A count of page views for Cambridge, Massachusetts is irrelevant. The ambiguous term is Cambridge, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. What we need to assess is the number of people who use the plain term "Cambridge" to refer to the suburb of Boston and not to the city in England. Not many, outside Boston, would be my guess". Doesn't really sound like a vote and throwing NPOV at people you disagree with seems a bit disingenuous. Good luck trying to make any block stick. Nev1 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You're a funny man :-) Nuff said! Jeni ^(talk) 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say I wanted her blocked? I don't want her blocked, I want her to actually respect the guidelines at PRIMARYTOPIC. Nev, what you quoted above essentially says "A guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant". That's not OK to just toss out a guideline like it's a rotten banana. That's where my POV concern comes from...that and Jeni coming out of practically nowhere to oppose my proposals that are founded in guidelines Purple backpack89 18:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I must say its interesting you suggest they are your proposals, since they were proposed by User:Floydian, should I be suspecting a sock here? And as for coming from nowhere, please see my edit notice which you would have seen when posting here.. "I have over 20,000 pages on my watchlist, including every UK place". Jeni ^(talk) 00:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at the edit summaries, you'd find that Floyd screwed up tagging it as a move, and I had to fix it myself. If you want to accuse Floyd of being a sock of me, you go right ahead...It'll make you look more ridiculous than taking you to AN for POV pushing (though now I could add false sock allegations)... Purple backpack89 02:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth

"Handful of little places?" Seriously, the first city in New England is a "little place?" A major American colony (which I might add outhits your English city 2:1) is a "little place"? One of the top 10-15 American car brands for half a century "some random North American car". Read LABattBoy's comments; also remember to keep a global perspective; many more people who use this live in North America than in England Purple backpack89 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WORCS

Hi Jeni. In order to more accurately interpret Wikipedia policy, it has been suggested that we rename the Malvern, Worcestershire page. Please see the proposal at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move where you are welcome to voice your opinion. --Kudpung (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]