User talk:Chris the speller

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Proposed deletion of Stefan Schaal

The article Stefan Schaal has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Gwyn Jenkins

Apologies for the revert, fat fingers on my part. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 23:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris! I am participating in a project related to meteorology and I found this article about clousterballooning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_ballooning) and in its references section it mentions the book "History of Weather Balloons", Lester, M. ISBN 1541366778, I searched for the ISBN on the internet but I couldn't find the book and in the view history it appears that you edited that reference and I wanted to ask you if you have the correct ISBN or a link to the book. JappLpo (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just fixing punctuation, and that was more than a year ago. I don't see how this relates to Gwyn Jenkins. Chris the speller ^yack 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minsters and Minsters

Hi Chris, Did you know that some of your edits were turning politicians into a type of church? Ϣere SpielChequers 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that before I broke a few hundred more. I have fixed them all, as well as a few that were already wrong. Nothing like a typo in an AWB rule to make your day interesting. Chris the speller ^yack

No problem. I really miss AWB, in almost all other respects I'm glad I ditched windows for my personal stuff. But AWB is one of two software tools that I miss and can't run under chrome. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stornoway Lifeboat Station

Hi Chris the speller

Re your amendments.. As per Wiki instructions..

"In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference).

Directly juxtaposed with the person's name, such words begin with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama). Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France). Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices."

"Full names of institutions, organizations, companies, etc. (United States Department of State) are proper names and require capitals. Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context)."

So it is perfectly acceptable to have "President of the Institution, H.R.H. Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, although with hindsight, I think I'll put it the other way around...

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it was not "President of the Institution", it was "the President of the Institution", so per MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:INSTITUTIONS, "the president" and "the institution" are clearly common nouns, and should be in lower case. Chris the speller ^yack 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you just delete the 'the' ? Ojsyork (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't twist text to try to justify unnecessary capitalization. And "President of the Institution" does not appear to be a "formal title for a specific entity", as MOS:JOBTITLES requires for capitalization. A search within WP found "president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers" and "president of the Institution of Civil Engineers", so "president of the institution" is obviously not a "globally unique" title as required by MOS:PEOPLETITLES, and "institution" is not a "shorter but still specific form". Better to just follow the MoS than to resort to contortions to circumvent the MoS in order to use capitalization that suits your own taste. Chris the speller ^yack 16:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying not to conform to MoS - I just don't necessarily agree with your interpretation.

You clearly stated your change was because the phrase was "the President of the Institution" and not "President of the Institution", so I corrected that, and still you're not happy.

I am happy to accept president in lower case. However, in context of the article, the Institution is a shortened form of Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and is therefore by Wiki standards perfectly acceptable in capitalized form. Ojsyork (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS says caps OK for a "shorter but still specific form", but "the Institution" is not a specific form; lots of things can be referred to as "the institution". The MoS shows the example "The university offers programs in arts and sciences", even in an article where it is clear from the context what university is being mentioned. Chris the speller ^yack 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we just have to agree that things can be interpreted differently. After all, there is a clause on Wiki that does say, there is no wrong way. The article is very clearly about the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and I will fight my corner of the use of Institution on all of the several hundred RNLI pages.

I don't wish to get into battles. I just get a bit frustrated when someone jumps in on the work you have spent many hours putting together, whilst trying to get detail right, and add citations, and to comply with everyone's pet topics of adding nbsp, or endash, or capitals, or whatever, etc., only for someone to immediately correct you, like you are stupid.

Best wishes

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I correct an article it is not to make a point about a previous editor being stupid; it is to help bring the article up to WP standards. If you take it as an insult, that's your issue. The MoS clearly indicates that WP's style is to not capitalize "the Institution", and it says that because a consensus of editors has decided that unnecessary capitalization prevents this encyclopedia from looking professional. Your mention of no wrong way is apparently a shortening of "There is no wrong way to edit Wikipedia as long as you follow guidelines and policies and work to improve our articles." You omitted "follow guidelines". If you ignore the MoS you can expect other editors to make corrections (read WP:OWN); any frustration you may then feel is not the fault of the other editors. My talk page is not a good place to discuss your unhappiness with the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris

You are more than welcome to reply on my talk page. But I think we are probably nearly done.

I just wished to point out, I have no intentions of not complying with MOS. I make every effort to get it right. And I absolutely get your points.

But some things are left open for interpretation, it isn't always black and white. I believe it would be perfectly acceptable to keep using 'Royal National Lifeboat Institution' every time, but isn't that just a bit over the top and unneccessary?

I still think using 'Institution', on a page about the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, is perfectly acceptable. But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for frustration, I do feel it is far too easy for those patrolling Wiki to maintain standards, which I fully support, to forget how much effort it takes to create pages, and maybe they should ease off a little sometimes.

I leave with no bad feeling toward you whatsoever. This is just discussion. I trust the same of you to me. I have another 70+ lifeboat pages to create, our paths may cross again. Take care.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

capitalization

I am not going to bother to undo any of your October 2 edits to Benjamin Butler, but the convention is to capitalize "President," "Senator," and other positions when they are followed by the name of the president or senator. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not capitalized in WP when they are modified or pluralized: see MOS:JOBTITLE, e.g. "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." Chris the speller ^yack 01:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JOBTITLE, under Positions, offices, and occupational titles, states:

They are capitalized only in the following cases:

When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.... Maurice Magnus (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Wait, it also says, "The French king Louis XVI was later beheaded." You must be saying that we should use "President Andrew Jackson" but "U.S. president Andrew Jackson," because in the latter case "U.S. president" is a description. I don't know. I think that the "The" before "French king" is necessary to make it a description.Maurice Magnus (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the example from the MoS, "US president Richard Nixon". If you just follow the MoS and the example, instead of trying to work around it, we'll be happier. Chris the speller ^yack 13:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toeing the line

I'm sure you knew it when you wrote it, but this is uncivil, passively suggesting I am both ignorant and careless. I recall you being abrupt but not rude before, so I'll chalk it up to a lack of tact, but advise you do not assume ignorance of anyone just because you pore over MoS.

Because as I can see from your user talkpage, you're wedded to your manual of style and appear to refuse to engage people taking issue with it, and as I have said at that article talkpage, the Cambridge grammar I used to teach allowed for hyphens in cases comparable to this even if not unclear. I'm not going to challenge an MoS because it's long-winded and they usually have a small army of sticklers ready to defend them and nobody else wanting to engage. So my other advice for you is to remember the spirit of guidelines, too, and in terms of hyphens it's always for clarity. Kingsif (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state or imply that you are ignorant or careless. The MoS is not there for you to ignore at will; this is not your encyclopedia. I observe the standards that the MoS provides because other editors have decided how WP should capitalize, punctuate, and so on, and it helps WP look professional. If you want to take issue with the MoS you should try the relevant MoS talk page, not my talk page. I have every right to make corrections that bring articles into conformity with the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 04:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives