|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Cat. cap. ==
| | {{archive box| |
| | * [[User talk:Lquilter/Archive 1|Archive 1]] |
| | }} |
|
| |
|
| Are you going to change *all* the entries about publications to lower-case "p"s for publications? That's going to take a while unless you have a robot to do it for you. There must be close to a thousand of those already. I was more or less going with the logic that only the first word of a category should be capitalised, unless they're names of things, like Star Trek or Star Wars, or they begin by a number, like the Year + Publication format, in which case the first word after the number'd be capitalised. What do you think? --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 18:40, 11 February 2007 (PST)
| |
|
| |
|
| : Yep, that's the rule I think is best; and it's sort of a standard from wikipedia. ... I was just going to do them all slowly, but maybe I should look for a bot to install. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 18:41, 11 February 2007 (PST)
| |
|
| |
|
| :: So, no exceptions for categories beginning with years? --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 18:43, 11 February 2007 (PST) | | * User:Lquilterjuly05 ... created 06/28. confirmed as of 7/5? |
| | * User:Lquilterjuly05b ... created 06/28. confirmed email 07/05. |
|
| |
|
| ::: Oh, sorry - I was reading too fast & missed the point of your comment. Umm, I don't know. What's the rationale for capping P in 19xx Publication? I'm not opposed to it, I was just going to default to the wikipedia rules for standardization. Also lowercase is easier to type and it is sort of the second word. What makes you think it's better to do it with the cap-X? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 18:46, 11 February 2007 (PST)
| | == [[Heidi Wyss]] == |
|
| |
|
| :::: The rationale is -- stay the course, because it'll be a bother to go back and fix everything that's been done already if you choose to do things differently. Nothing more rational''-no-e'' than that. It *would* be easier to type lowercase, so I can see the value of adopting that standard in the future. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 18:58, 11 February 2007 (PST)
| | Hi, could you please unprotected the article? Thanks.[[User:Kolobok|Kolobok]] 13:13, 13 December 2011 (PST) |
| | |
| ::::: I take your point. Maybe, we keep doing the X Publications & others until I get a bot up & running for mass search-and-replace. But do you think, stay the course on the ''standard'', such as it is, or stay the course on the existing categories? I can see reasons for both: the standard to keep things consistent so there's ''some'' rationality in the meantime; or start moving to the other method so we don't have more to do ultimately. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 19:00, 11 February 2007 (PST)
| |
| | |
| :::::: I meant my irrational rationale was to stay the course on the categories that it would take longest to revise, but if you can get a robot for mass edits then they could be amended in the future, so it would be more logical to adopt the standard now than continue with inconsistent, idiosyncratic variations only because they've already been established. Oh, and if you haven't already, could you link to info about that Wiki spelling standard from the main page or something? To make it easy to reference? I have no idea where it is, and Wikipedia's help pages are many and labyrinthine in their organisation... --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 19:19, 11 February 2007 (PST)
| |
| | |
| ::::: No kidding (re: wikipedia difficult to navigate). I've set up [[FSFwiki:Style guide]] which links to the wikipedia style guide. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 19:23, 11 February 2007 (PST)
| |
| | |
| ==Spam==
| |
| You might want to swiftly delete the page which was made for David Stempel by the spammer because google turns him up as a legitimate writer on medical subjects. [[User:Contributor|Contributor]] 13:48, 4 March 2007 (PST)
| |
| | |
| ==Category proposed for deletion==
| |
| I proposed a category for deletion on this talk page: [[FSFwiki_talk:Categorization]], "I propose Category:Folk & Popular Works for deletion because I created and relinked the relevant pages to Category:Folk and popular works. I've also added this proposal to an active admin's talk page in case no admins are watching this article." I hope you don't mind me drawing your attention to it here too. [[User:Contributor|Contributor]] 18:22, 4 March 2007 (PST)
| |
