User talk:Tomwsulcer/sandbox

Dating revamp

Note: this was moved to the "Dating" talk page==

This is a vast improvement on the current article and mostly very well-sourced - congratulations.

I'll do a more detailed read and a copy-edit in due course but just a few points that jump out:

I think the second paragraph of the lead is much too long and very confusing - it's basically a way of saying "different terms are used in different countries, and different things are meant by dating". So why not just reduce the second para to something like: "The protocols and practices of dating, and the terms used to describe it, vary considerably from country to country" - and then let the country sections do the work?

Agreed. Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, "most likely have not yet begun having sexual relations" strikes me as U.S.-centric, particularly because you go on immediately to say that in China people who are dating probably are having sex.

Agreed. Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the British usages (I'm British BTW) going out together and hanging out are not quite equivalent to dating. The former can mean dating but can also mean being in a relatively long-standing and sexual boyfriend-girlfriend relationship although not cohabiting. The latter could imply a couple are dating casually but could also just mean they are friends.

Fixed. (is the new wording better?) Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term has an entirely different meaning in archaeology - not sure we need this, as the disambiguation page provides that info.

Agreed. Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain there is less familiarity with the term dating than in America - actually I think the term is probably universally understood by all but the very young or very unworldly, but that's thanks to American movies and TV! There's certainly much less use of the term but I wouldn't call it unfamiliar.

American movies & TV. Sheesh. Fixed. Done --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice and strategies - not quite convinced this section is enyclopedia material. Barnabypage (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's think about whether to include this section. I think it's interesting but I too wonder whether it belongs. (or maybe a separate article in WP?) or maybe toned down. I don't think the stuff in this section covers it by any stretch, but it can go on and on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to edit the draft in the sandbox as you see fit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering about some things...

Format -- the country-by-country is more balanced but I'm wondering whether having each country have its own subsection is a bit much; could it lead to people from other countries insisting that their country have its own dating section too -- such as "Dating in Zimbabwe" or "Dating in Uzbekistan" etc. So I'm thinking maybe it would be better to just break up this "Dating worldwide" section into continents, making specific countries less prominent. Or is there a better solution?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic input -- this helped with the United States Congress revamp. I'm thinking more needs to be put in here; any suggestions of good sources? I don't have JSTOR.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer may be to split the sections along cultural lines rather than being rigidly geographical. For example, dating practices China and India seem to be quite different so it could be confusing/misleading to lump them together under Dating in Asia. OTOH I suspect that (for example) the situations in Libya and Jordan are rather similar although they're on different continents, so they could live together under Dating in the Arab world. Barnabypage (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I don't remember if I put "Egypt" under Africa or the "Middle East" but it probably should go in the Middle East, or like you say "Arab world". But what I'm trying to avoid is a situation where every country wants to have its own section and the article grows needlessly long, but I don't know if this will be a problem.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street revamp

Wondering what the next step here is. I feel I'm too close to it and fresh eyes are needed to think about this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Erie revamp

If people have suggestions I'm interested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the revamp has been swapped into the Lake Erie article (new waters have been added to the existing lake waters of Wikipedia?) so if there are changes please make them directly to the Lake Erie article, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]