User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive001
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive002
• User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive003

Puns in Binomial Nomenclature

The way you have "use of puns" now (although ruinous of the 2nd paragraph) is grammatically correct—it would seem that how scientists come up with species names is a topic for an entire paragraph, within which use of puns is certainly appropriate. If it needs to be linked to latinization, that could be moved down as well. But I'm curious; wherever did you get this idea in the first place? Not that it has never happened, but it is so rare as to stretch anyone's imagination to look for an example (I assume you do not have one). It is about as minor a point as I could imagine to put in that article, although certainly would add some interest if we could give an example or two. It is certainly open to challange by anyone as something you made up, so an example would help prevent that. - Marshman 01:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) Ooops, I missed your note about the External link, I will check it out. Think about putting together a 2nd paragraph (as I had started) covering puns and other souyrces of names; maybe with "all latinized" in it - Marshman 01:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) pretty cool site. Shoulda looked there first! Lots of examples - Marshman 02:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wibble, West Midlands

X, West Midlands (ie. disambiguation by ceremonial county) is the standard form used for articles in the UK. There's no agreed policy on it, unfortunately, but it is what has been and is being used, so when I see something at a different location, I move it. BTW, thanks for fixing spellings! Warofdreams 13:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current Events

Thanks! much better wording of today's Current events ....and without loss of information! 209.135.35.83 20 Jul 2004

FHM

No, I commented on Template:CFD:FHM110sexiest. -SV. In case you missed it:

Myself, Im inclined to think that MK, you must be on the FHM payroll, or else have no clue about what NPOV means. Perhaps the third option is more realistic: You spent a lot of time populating that list, innocent of the problems that it would raise, and like the rest of us, dont like to see your hard work get tossed. I sympathise; but back to the issue; Wikipedias prime directive is NPOV (followed by m:civility, and m:wikilove) and this includes devising a category scheme for POV based articles about matters of taste. Its beyond POV, its Double POV with a twist of corporate media influence on Wikipedia's culture. Pigs cannot fly, and neither does your reasoning for keeping this category. My sincere apologies if this all seemed like stepping on your toes. -Stevertigo 07:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Producer(s)

Moved to Talk:Producer (disambiguation)

Article of the week

I have turned your vote "against" wildlife as Article of the week into a "comment". AOTW uses approval voting (that is, we only count votes in support, not votes against).

I'm not sure what you mean by wildlife being "too short" - the aim of AOTW is to pick a stub or short article that can be turned into a featured-standard article by the end of one week, from widespread cooperative editing. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Misnunderstanding on my part, now corrected. Sorry. Andy Mabbett 10:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem - just thought I ought to check. Thanks for supporting it instead. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LOTR

I suggest that you stop reverting the LOTR article to add it to the Birmingham category. You have already reverted more than three times, which can get you blocked from editing if you persist. So far you are the only person arguing for including it and at least three against it. older≠wiser 22:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you understand the guidelines before you cite them to support your threats. Andy Mabbett 22:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to clarify which guidelines you think I am misunderstaning. And for the record, if you would read my comment carefully, I did not in any way threaten you--I was informing you about the three revert rule. At no point did I say that I would block you, nor even seek to initiate such an action. older≠wiser 23:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current Events/ Beit Hanoun

I would like to ask you not to delete the NYT link regarding the 15 year child murdered today in Beit Hanoun. The AFP reports differs in at least three significant ways from the NYT and INN reports (as detailed in Talk:Current Events). Reuters did not carry the story. I do not know why.

So find another source, one which doesn't require subscription; [1], for instance. Andy Mabbett 21:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kipper legends

The origin of kippers is Old English. Old English dates back a thousand years or more. This is established by the 1911 Encylopedia Brittanica entry for kipper (see google, the "k" volume has not been made avilable yet to Wikipedia). Since kipper is pre-historic and there is no definitive origin story, I would hazzard a guess there is more than one kipper legend in the world, and that they would all be very local in flavour, perhaps helping the merchant who created the story.

The main body of the kipper article should not be clutterd up with all these local legend refrences.. it is confusing and inaccurate. Scholaraly research shows that "kipper" has been around for a long time dateing back a thousand years or more. It should either be clearly marked as "false", or it should be moved to a seperate "legends" article. As it stands, the "claimed legend" is not clearly defined as being outright wrong, and is confusing.

So mark it as false, and say why! Andy Mabbett 20:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ok I'll try to make it work so it makes sense in the main article Stbalbach