User talk:Timeineurope

Welcome!

Hello, Timeineurope, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Agathoclea 13:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Timeineurope 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are working on Germany related articles. Maybe I can invite you to look by our Project. Agathoclea 13:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Hi, I see you have been adding adding pronunciation to articles, especially German ones. That's very worthwhile! Would you be interested in adding them to German opera-related pages? If so, I could perhaps suggest some some lists of articles to work on - assuming you have time to take it on. Thanks and best regards from the Opera Project! -- 16:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. Not promising anything, though. Timeineurope 12:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main list of composers, many of them German of course, is at The opera corpus. Thanks for considering helping us! -- Kleinzach 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dover, Delaware. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange thing to write after I had given a detailed explanation on the talk page of why the reverts were necessary.

Timeineurope 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing strange about it. You completed 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. Had you been warned previously, you would have just been blocked instead of only warned this time. The fact that you have started discussing it now on the talk page, does not give you license to continue to make your change in the absence of consensus. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't break the three-revert rule. My 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) edit was not a revert.

Timeineurope 05:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish mountain heights

Unfortunately the page you are using at the OSI is inaccurate. Unless Lugnaquilla has lost 7 feet in the last 10 years when it has been that height to my knowledge and on my ordinance survey maps going back 40 years, there is something wrong here. Lugnaquilla is 3093 feet which is 926+ meters and if you search online for Lugnaquilla and 3039 feet you get many more hits than with 3032 or 924 and 925. I have a special Army map of the Glen of Imaal range and it show 3039 too. I think somebody got that web page wrong. Maybe someone can go an look at the current OS maps of Ireland and see what they say. Even the online maps of Getamap, based on the OSINI show 925 and not 924 here. I suggest you double check these edits you with some more verifiable data. Cheers ww2censor 20:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these mountains have been resurveyed recently, that would explain the discrepancies: the easy-to-update OSi page would give the new heights, maps published before the resurveys would give the old heights. Timeineurope 06:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct to say If they were resurveyed, if being the important word, but there is no evidence for a resurvey anywhere that I know of. Do you have any evidence? I have asked someone else to look at some current maps and I will be in Ireland in 2 weeks so will also see when the latest maps were surveyed, but I have not heard of any major surveys in the last 30 years. ww2censor 16:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use English

Please do not meddle with the complex compromise secured at Voßstraße; the WP:MOS says that we should use the anglicized or local spelling depending on whether English does or not. Since the page title is not English, as is universally agreed, the name can be reasonably either anglicized or in italics; at the moment, it is anglicized by itself, and italicized in addresses. If you would prefer to change the balance, please discuss it on the talk page. If this were a no-brainer, no one would disagree with you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the WP:MOS says as long as the article is entitled Voßstraße. At best, the WP:MOS might be an argument for moving the article to Vossstrasse, but it can never be an argument for using "Vossstrasse" in an article entitled "Voßstraße".

No encyclopaedia uses different spellings of the same word within an article. This general principle overrides any "complex compromise" that may have been "secured at Voßstraße".

If it were "universally agreed" that "the page title is not English", the article wouldn't be at Voßstraße.

Timeineurope 09:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page; the chief argument for the present title is that the street has no name in English at all, and we should therefore use German spelling for the name of the article, although English more often uses ss than eszett. I disagree with this recent innovation as contrary to common sense and our naming conventions; but a majority insists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that someone obviously thought "Voßstraße" was English enough for the page title, and if it's English enough for the page title, it's English enough for the rest of the article. The rest of the article must defer to the page title. The page title is part of the article, so the article currently uses both spellings "by itself". For the sake of consistency, it needs to use just one. This can be accomplished either by changing the page title to conform to the rest of the article (but an attempt to do that just failed) or by changing the rest of the article to conform to the page title.

Timeineurope 11:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Moving Benicio Del Toro to Benicio del Toro

Good catch... --Boricuaeddie 17:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I thought about it too long. I was just headed over to vote in favour of the move, having convinced myself that the "common use" argument didn't really win in this case, IMO. Oh well. Thanks for the heads up. Guettarda 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mabel

Hello Timeineurope, on this page you state quite correctly: "not complete and accurate" is not a direct quote from Balkenende's letter nor from a translation thereof, it comes from a Government.nl news item that doesn't quote the letter directly. You would have been quite right in reverting the incorrect edit, but apparently you have not yet done so. Just forgotten? Or did something go wrong technically? I suppose you are going to make this revert as yet. Paul kuiper NL 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit consisted of removing the quotation marks around "not complete and accurate". Timeineurope 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Mary Sunshine

Please - Wiki style says only link the first mention of something - inserted four links to Rodgers and Hammerstein is no neccessary!!Soundofmusicals 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Mary Sunshine is the sort of article that people might only read parts of, which is why I inserted three links to Rodgers and Hammerstein. They may not be strictly necessary, but they don't do any harm, either, besides, you also deleted my links to All Er Nuthin' and I Cain't Say No and reverted my spelling correction of Oklahoma to Oklahoma!, so I'm undoing your edit. Timeineurope 09:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nöörje or Nøørje

Hi, both Nöörje and Nøørje are correct according to Southern Sami. The difference is that the former is used in Sweden and the later in Norway. Off course you are right in that Norway should use the later, so sorry for reverting you.Labongo 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request of citation

Hi timeineurope
I noticed that you placed a lot of {{fact}} tags on Daniosh related pages. I do not know much about International Phonetic Alphabet, but I would like to know what facts it is you are interested in?
Best regards and happy editing. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have tagged all those transcriptions with {{citation needed}} is that I suspect they are all wrong. Timeineurope 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3R violation on Finland

Kindly note that your edits on Finland violate the Three-revert rule. This is notified in the respective incident board. --Drieakko 18:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blatant lie. My last four edits on Finland were at 18:15, 29 September (UTC), 17:03, 29 September (UTC), 16:06, 29 September (UTC), and 15:26, 26 September (UTC). Timeineurope 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this user makes very POV edits. --88.114.235.214 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del Toro

Although it was the consensus up until the 14th century that the planet was flat, this was not the case. In fact, it was round. Just because there is consensus does not mean that something is correct. Del Toro with a capitalized Del is the correct spelling of Benicio Del Toro's name. It is not del Toro as some claim. Maybe the best evidence of this is the actor's official website, www.beniciodeltoro.com, which capitalizes the Del. In fact, only in Wikipedia have I seen Del Toro spelled del Toro. I truly baffles me why people continue to insist it is del Toro. Should we not go by how the name bearer, Benicio Del Toro himself spells his last name? Who are we to correct him otherwise (although he uses the correct spelling so there is no need for correction)? Yes, Guillermo del Toro is with a lower case del, but Benicio spells his name with an upper case Del. Why? It all depends in the family, country of origin of the family and the passing of time.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would bother to read the discussion at Talk:Benicio del Toro, you would find that Benicio del Toro spells his name with a lower-case d (as do the majority of Spanish-language web pages). Timeineurope 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

Hi,

Could you tell me why you reverted a phonemic English pronunciation of Evelyn Waugh, John Wesley, John Galsworthy, Charles Dickens, Eleanor Roosevelt, Carlsberg, Peter Ustinov to a general phonetic one? Since you've changed articles on both Brits and Yanks, it doesn't seem to be an attempt to impose a specifit regional pronunciation.

Thanks, kwami 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am against the use of phonemic transcription on Wikipedia. We transcribe a gazillion languages here, and if we do it phonemically, readers will have to know the phonology of a gazillion languages in order to understand the transcriptions. If we do it phonetically, readers will only have to know the International Phonetic Alphabet.

But it is Wikipedia policy, as stated on Help:Pronunciation. I wouldn't expect anything but English to be transcribed phonemically.

Nowhere does it say that it is policy. Help:Pronunciation was written by one user apparently with no discussion and carries no special weight. What is the intended meaning of your second sentence?

Since our readers know English, a phonemic representation is appropriate. It wouldn't be for other languages, except in articles about those languages. (Sorry, typo.) kwami

It is hardly safe to assume that readers know enough about English pronunciation to be able to use your transcriptions correctly. Timeineurope 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your clarification that the standard U.S. pronunciation of "thorough" rhymes with "furrow." Dratman (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the use of ɨ instead of ɪ to transcribe the second vowel of Evelyn, Dickens and Ustinov.

Okay.

Your transcription of Carlsberg was erroneous by any standard.

How?

It was simultaneously rhotic and non-rhotic.

Pronunciations shouldn't be dialect specific unless they need to be, unless we want to go around and add everyone's dialect to every word that has its pronunciation indicated. Americans can merge RP vowels, and RP speakers can drop their aitches and ars. Thus the /slashes/.

It was /ˈkɑːlzbərg/. Timeineurope 12:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, my bad. kwami 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the revision histories of Eleanor Roosevelt and Peter Ustinov.

There's nothing there that I can see. kwami 10:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to my edit summaries.

Timeineurope 10:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You said they go against all available sources, but I've never heard anything but that pronunciation for E.R., and hers is a very common name. Ustinov too is often pronounced with a [v]. kwami 12:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeineurope 10:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Buren, Arkansas

Come on, TI, the IPA doesn't even match the chart that you're helping to write. There is no /e/ in English, as we're notating it, there's /ɛ/ and /eɪ/. Right now it looks like VAN-bue-RAIN. Whatever the pronunciation is, let's make it unambiguous. kwami 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to use e for the vowel of bet, and that is obviously what is done here, so it looks like VAN-bue-REN. Timeineurope 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's fix it so it's unambiguous. kwami 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing St. Teath. It was pretty clearly representing the opposite, so good thing we caught it. kwami 01:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, TI, why don't you work with people! Several of us put the IPA English chart together; if you don't like it, discuss it on the talk page before you start insisting on your way of doing things. Your edits, frankly, look like a mess. Are we really going to transcribe a word like "bear" (/bɛ(ə)(ɹ)/)? If everyone agrees with you, fine, but it's up to you to convince them. kwami 10:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was you alone who "put the IPA English chart together", the only other person contributing to its transcription system was Angr, and all that user did was change æː to æ. Even though you know there is no consensus, you keep changing transcriptions to conform to your system.

Transcriptions like /ˈbɛ(ə)(ɹ)/ are only necessary if you insist on providing only one transcription.

Timeineurope 11:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page, but it was in discussion long before that, and I actually contributed very little to its content. kwami 11:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratko Mladić

This is the first time that I see someone using {{cite}} for an IPA pronunciation. Pardon me, but could you please show some trust in good faith of knowledgeable users? The pronunciation is there for readers' convenience, not as a potentially contentious fact. FYI, the Serbian phonetic system is described at Serbian language#Phonology, sourced from two reliable sources (Moren [4] and Alt & Browne [5]). You don't really expect us to hunt probably non-existing sources where pronunciation of "Ratko Mladić" is explained in IPA, do you? Duja► 12:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't questioned anyone's good faith. There is nothing at Serbian language#Phonology to tell us whether Mladić is pronounced [ˈmlaːditɕ] or, say, [ˈmladiːtɕ]. I do have a source where pronunciation of "Mladić" is given in IPA, and it contradicts the transcription given in the article.

Timeineurope 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. [ˈmladiːtɕ] is indeed pronunciation of the common word "mladić" (young man). The surname has different accent. It's a common pun, a couple of times abused by sensationalist media — "Mladić arrested in Belgrade" in big letters on the front page; of course, it's about a young man arrested for whatever crime. Duja► 14:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's the source of the confusion, then. (My source explicitly gives [ˈmladiːtɕ] as the pronunciation of the surname.)

Timeineurope 06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didsbury

I notice that you placed a {{fact}} tag after the IPA representation of the village's name in the Didsbury article, which I have removed.

That seems a very strange thing for you to have done. What kind of a citation are you looking for? --Malleus Fatuarum 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A citation that proves that it really has the unexpected pronunciation dids-BURY instead of the expected DIDS-bury. Timeineurope 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ʑ

Russian /ʑː/ is a marginal phoneme, and is perhaps formal, but жжёшь [ʑːoʂ] "you burn" is reported to have it. Of course, if you can find a more accessible example, that would be preferable. kwami 20:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland

Just wanna verify: the local pronunciation is newfund LAND ? kwami 11:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most common local pronunciation has the accent on the last syllable, yes. Timeineurope 11:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strabane: so what's wrong with the pronunciation this time? It would be nice if you were to explain what you're doing. kwami 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's phonemic and uses /r/. I prefer ɹ even in phonemic transcription and prefer transcriptions on Wikipedia to be phonetic. Readers who know IPA should be able to understand our transcriptions right away, without having to consult an account of our idiosyncratic transcription system. Timeineurope 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic transcriptions may be unambiguous, but they're too dialect specific for Wikipedia. Your transcription of Strabane may fit with how conservative RP speakers say it but I seriously doubt it's how people from Strabane say it, nor is it how I say it.--JHJ 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot problem

The bot is currently changing "citation needed" to "citations needed" for no apparent reason, eg at Richard Dreyfuss and Religion in Portugal. Timeineurope 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Rich Farmbrough 22:04 4 November 2007 (UTC).

IPA

Hi,

Reverted your IPA for Los Altos Hills as that wasn't the dictionary.com transcription that you cited. I don't understand why a phonemic transcription would require two variants; it would seem to avoid it.

Your system would require both the pronunciation of Los with /ɔ/ and the one with /ɒ/ to be given, as both are found in dictionaries and neither is more supported by the local pronunciation.

Fair enough.

Does Florence Nightingale really have a flapped ar in it? Is that how it's pronounced in the UK, with a flap that doesn't occur in any other word? And Edward is pronounced aide-word? kwami 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only recording of Florence Nightingale, made by Edison in 1890, has her pronouncing Florence with [ɾ]. The IPA letter e has never represented a diphthong.

Timeineurope 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's her personal pronunciation, one that hardly anyone else uses, than that should be clarified in the article, or people like me will think it's an error. As for Edward, is that also his personal pronunciation, or local dialect? Otherwise it should be /ɛ/. kwami 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use [ɾ] in that position was perfectly common back in Florence Nightingale's day. While the E of Edward is now somewhere between [ɛ] and [e] but closer to [ɛ], it was closer in A. E. Housman's day.

Timeineurope 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to indicate that these aren't the normal pronunciation of the names. I think it's great to have historically accurate information, but it should be labeled as such.

Do you disagree with the IPA I added to Linus Torvalds? It seems odd to revert it to the "need IPA" tag. Wouldn't it be better to correct any errors? We have the sound file right there. kwami 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA you added was clearly wrong, but I'm not sure what the ideal transcription would be. It would be naive to think that one could arrive at a correct IPA transcription by listening to a sound file.

Timeineurope 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TI, your dismissive attitude is getting annoying. Of course I make mistakes, some out of ignorance and some out of oversight, and I welcome your help. But sometimes you make mistakes as well, such as adding stress to French or using ad hoc conventions, like numerals for tone. If I make an error, I would appreciate it if you corrected it rather than simply reverting to something that is also incorrect. And if you were to explain what you're doing, I'd know when I make a mistake. kwami 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your creating all sorts of messes for me to clear up is getting annoying. If you make an error, of course I will undo it rather than let it stay. That doesn't mean I suddenly have a duty to contribute further to the article.

French does have stress. Not phonemic stress, but we're doing phonetic transcription.

Timeineurope 01:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexically it doesn't even have phonetic stress, only prosodic intonation to the phrase. We're giving the pronunciations of individual words. kwami 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An individual word is a groupe rythmique, too. If a native speaker of French was asked to pronounce Ferdinand de Saussure, they would pronounce it with stress on the last syllable.

Timeineurope 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me, and I've started adding stress to entries which didn't have it, not because they're groupes rythmiques (in general they're not), but because that's more useful to the reader. kwami (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All French utterances contain at least one groupe rythmique. Timeineurope (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular instance of a word will not, in general, occur at the end of a groupe rythmique; therefore a word will not, in general, have stress. kwami (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any French utterance, including a name, will contain at least one groupe rythmique. Timeineurope (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that. It's simply irrelevant. kwami (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readers expect the pronunciations we give to be able to stand alone. Without stress, they can't. Timeineurope (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. kwami (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

Hello, Timeineurope ! Please stop inserting references to Swiss German in the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film article. I have been working on a new version of this article for a couple of weeks now, and I myself am the one who initially put Swiss German in the "Language(s)" column (the previous version of the article was a total mess and did not even list each film's respective language). I simply put Swiss German because that was what IMDb cited as the languages of the films Journey of Hope and Marie-Louise (I'd like to point your attention to the fact that you forgot to include Swiss German for the latter film, probably because I had removed it during a previous edit that you didn't notice). However, after carefully reading the article several times, I noticed that it wasn't coherent to put "Swiss German" for a film like Journey of Hope and simply "Arabic" for a film like Paradise Now (and not "Palestinian Arabic"). If we are going to specify which films use Swiss German, then we should also specify which ones use Canadian French, Mandarin Chinese, Mexican Spanish, etc... In order to be coherent, the article should thus list which dialects and regional variations are used for each and every film. In my opinion, if we do so, the tables will become totally unreadable. The article is currently nominated as a Featured List Candidate, and there are people who are complaining that the tables already contain too much information. Therefore, please stop reverting my edit each time I remove Swiss German from the list. BomBom (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency should never be the top priority. It's better to have an inconsistent article that tells us one film is in Swiss German but neglects to tell us that another film is in Palestinian Arabic than to have a consistent article that doesn't tell us that that film is in Swiss German. Also note that you are comparing apples and oranges here: A Mexican film will usually simply be in the Mexican variety of Standard Spanish, which is understood by people who speak the Spanish variety of Standard Spanish. Swiss German, on the other hand, is incomprehensible for someone who only speaks Standard German. Swiss German and Standard German are more different than many languages, and it's only by convention that they are most commonly regarded as dialects of one language rather than as two different languages. The line between language and dialect is a very blurry one.

Your claim that the tables will become totally unreadable is baseless, and as for the people complaining that the tables already contain too much information, pay no attention to them, they are simply wrong.

Timeineurope (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cockburn

Reference? kwami (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you may be right, though the person who added the pronunciation to the article was just guessing. I would appreciate it, however, if you wouldn't remove improvements to an article when you make your unexplained corrections. It isn't that difficult. kwami (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly an improvement when the article suddenly contradicts itself on how Cockburn is pronounced. Timeineurope (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia are you using? There is no self-contradiction in the English version, as far as I can see; it appears to be the only mention of the pronunciation. Yet you would redirect readers who are unfamiliar with the IPA to the inaccessible main article, the one readers have been complaining about for years. What I am trying to do here more than anything is help make Wikipedia more accessible. Having you constantly making it less accessible, apparently out of laziness, is the main reason I keep reverting you. kwami (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article said that Cockburn was pronounced /ˈkoʊbɚn/ or "co-burn". Since burn isn't pronunced with ɚ, that's a self-contradiction.

You're taking pronunciation respellings to be as precise as the IPA? kwami (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a pronunciation respelling says that a syllable is pronounced "burn", one should be able to expect that it is pronounced like the word burn. Timeineurope (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that reverting an erroneous edit gives the reverting editor a duty to work further on the article is still as ridiculous as ever.

Timeineurope (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calathes pronunciation

What are you doing? /kɑˈlɑʈɪs/ is the correct Greek pronunciation of Calathes. It's Ka-laa-this, both "a" being pronounced like in "father", and the "i" like in "is". —Bender235 (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, /ʈ/ doesn't even exist in Greek. Timeineurope (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: BALLON ANGIOPLASTY

I was not completely clear during that discussion. Go and Search are two of the navigational features and they do have specific (and slightly different) rules about capitalization but they are not the only ways that our users have to navigate. Some of the other techniques can also be case-sensitive. For example, standard links are completely case sensitive. Ballon Angioplasty is different from Ballon ANGIOPLASTY, BALLON Angioplasty, BALLON ANGIOPLASTY, etc (but not ballon Angioplasty). If someone puts a miscapitalized link in an article, the link stays red.

Now, the ideal solution is for someone to quickly correct the link to the correct capitalization. But that often doesn't happen so someone builds a redirect instead. Even if you go back and correct all the inbound links and orphan the redirect, the old, "bad" link stays in the pagehistory forever. If the page is ever reverted (say, to clean out vandalism) and the old link is recreated, you're back to the dead link. Likewise, if anyone has created an external link to the page that depends on the old "bad" capitalization, you'll never even know that it's out there, much less have any ability to fix it.

Cross-wiki links sometimes also deal with capitalization differently than the Wikipedia engine does. Wiktionary, for example, would consider Balloon and balloon to be different words. (At Wiktionary, propercase titles are sometimes but not always redirected to the lowercase version.)

Sorry for not being clearer. I was trying to widen the discussion beyond just considering Search and Go. Redirects do much more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Green

"Baseless accusations of vandalism will get you nowhere." You're right, it was rude of me to say "vandalism" and I apologise. It was, however, a reversion of an edit I made that did the following:

Removed a fictional birthdate that can be deduced only by original research.
Changed the grammatically inaccurate "is a fictional character on the popular U.S. television sitcom Friends (1994-2004), played by Jennifer Aniston" to the grammatically accurate "is a fictional character portrayed by Jennifer Aniston on the American television sitcom Friends."
Moved a lengthy section on a minor inconsistency (surname) that included original research ("it is assumed this is the correct spelling") to a footnote that is accessible from the lead.

Additionally, you provided no reason(s) for your first reversion. I have therefore reverted this back. Brad (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is not grammatically inaccurate – it doesn't say that Jennifer Aniston played Friends, it's just theoretically ambiguous. This ambiguity is resolved by context.

As for the spelling of her surname, that's an important enough subject to deserve its own section. I've addressed the WP:OR concern you brought up.

Timeineurope (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"dose"

[1]

Can you provide a source for the claim that "dose" can be pronounced with /z/ in American English? (Both sources are American, so British or other pronunciations wouldn't apply.) Every dictionary I've looked in includes on one pronunciation for the word "dose", and it's with /s/.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't think the fact that dose can be pronounced either way is sufficient ground for uncertainty, there are several other reasons why I'm not sure how Chiodos is pronounced:

While I can find no unambiguous claim that Chiodos is pronounced with /s/, I have found a claim that it's pronounced with /z/: Here someone claims they heard the pronunciation chee-o-doze on TV.

While the source that has Chee-Yo-Dose has it straight from the horse's mouth, people wouldn't necessarily use Dose to indicate the pronunciation of the word dose. The pronunciation of Melbourne is often given as Mel-burn, yet the last syllable is not pronounced like the word burn, but with a schwa: /ˈmelbən/. Even when transcribing phonetically or phonemically, it happens that people use [s] for [z] or /s/ for /z/.

Finally, the band's name is inspired by the surname Chiodo, whose plural Chiodos is pronounced with /z/.

Timeineurope (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if you have another source, that's a different matter. We can raise that on the talk page to see what other people have heard. (Of course, 'heard on TV' doesn't necessarily mean 'heard from s.o. who knows'.) Otherwise you're just assuming incompetency on the part of the source we have.

As for 'Melbourne', can you think of a monosyllabic word that does have the vowel of -bourne? That's just an artifact of using sound-alikes, one which does not apply to dose vs. doze. kwami (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't follow that if I didn't have another source, I would be assuming incompetency on the part of the sources in the article. Those sources may be perfectly competent, it's just that they are ambiguous as to whether Chiodos is pronounced with /s/ or /z/. Timeineurope (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point now -- I think I misunderstood what you'd said. It seemed to me that you were saying the word "dose" had multiple pronunciations -- and I still believe that when someone says "It's pronounced 'dose'", they mean like the word. (By the way, many people do say "mell-burn".)

It's perfectly reasonable to expect people to pronounce "Chiodos" two different ways (although all the sources seem to confirm that the "kee-" pronunciations are incorrect, but that's another matter). - Revolving Bugbear 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guillain-Barré pronunciation

Despite your comment in the history of the Guillain-Barré Syndrome page, there is no doubt in my mind about the correct pronunciation of "Guillain-Barré". I work with physicians in clinical research at a hospital, and everyone that I know who has a proper medical education pronounces this term the way I have transcribed it in the article. If you have a source contradicting the pronunciation I have given, please cite it here. I am interested. If you have no source, then your deletion must have been made in ignorance and arrogance. A quick Google search returns numerous pages confirming that my pronunciation is correct (see below for some links). Please desist from removing this pronunciation from the article, because it is far from "dubious", and it is a vital component of the article. In the future, please check your facts before deleting valuable information from articles.

www.kidshealth.org/teen/diseases_conditions/bones/gbs.html[2]
www.xmedia.ne.jp/gbs_qld/[3]
www.painprevention.net/guillainbarre_syndrome_.aspx[4]
www.jsmarcussen.com/gbs/uk/overview.htm[5]
health.yahoo.com/nervous-overview/guillain-barre-syndrome-topic-overview/healthwise--hw65906.html[6]
www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/gbs.htm[7]
--Jmjanzen (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please desist"? I removed this unsourced pronunciation once back in November. The sources you cite above disagree among themselves, giving at least three different pronunciations, and not one of those six sources supports the pronunciation I removed.

For a discussion of the pronunciation, see world-renowned phonetician and pronunciation dictionary author John Wells's phonetic blog (the entry for 23 February 2007): [8]

Timeineurope (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Although neither of the pronunciations you have offered match that of the professional medical community in my area (Wichita, Kansas, USA), I suppose it is conceivable that they are all pronouncing it wrong. They are not phoneticians. In fact, it might actually be distracting or confusing to pronounce "Guillain-Barré" correctly in my workplace. I'm curious about your opinion on this matter. Do you think that the popular American pronunciation of "Guillain-Barré" (among medical professionals) has a place in this article, even though it is incorrect by French pronunciation standards? (I'd guess that you deal with this kind of issue frequently.)

2. The corrected pronunciation is a significant improvement over simply deleting the pronunciation that you deemed "dubious". My pronunciation, though slightly incorrect (most readers probably won't understand the difference between my pronunciation and yours), was a significant improvement over a complete lack of any pronunciation transcription. I maintain that it should never have been removed until it could be properly replaced.

3. John Wells' blog is very helpful. I've taken only an introductory course in French phonetics. So many rules, so many exceptions....

--Jmjanzen (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Please do not delete references that do not conform to your POV. kwami (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against the reference (which you originally didn't include, so your edit summary 'restore ref' made no sense), just your other changes. Timeineurope (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking up 'restore' in the dictionary. Here, I'll help you: [9]. I don't have to be the one that originally included the reference you deleted in order to 'restore' it, but I was, so either way you once again appear disconnected from reality. Arrogance isn't the worst fault in an editor, but you might want to ensure that you at least deserve it. kwami (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the edit summary 'restore ref' made no sense was that I hadn't deleted the reference – it hadn't been there in your version. If you now think it's important to include the reference after all, I'm OK with that (and have edited the article accordingly), but you can hardly expect me to guess that a reference that you yourself didn't include in a previous version (even though it had been in the article before that) now would make the difference between a POV and an NPOV article. Timeineurope (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guillain-Barré syndrome

No idea what is going on here but I protected this article for a week considering the edits of the last few days. I probably protected the wrong version of course. Please discuss changes on Talk:Guillain-Barré syndrome. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert

I see that you have come back to start a new edit war on the article page. The consensus was not to make the change you suggest. Also, editors believed that your IPA transcription is wrong. I suggested a compromise. Please stop edit warring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit consisted in removing the footnote altogether, hardly a 'compromise'. Any consensus concerned inserting a pronunciation into the lead; having an IPA transcription in a footnote is something else completely. I inserted a different IPA transcription this time, hopefully addressing the concern of the one editor who considered the last one wrong (but refused to say what was wrong about it). Timeineurope (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "r" sound in the second syllable? It should end: ɚt -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no r sound in Gilbert as pronounced by himself; he was from London, where they speak with a non-rhotic accent. Timeineurope (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in many ways. First, the name is a common English name, and non-British English speakers will pronounce it in their own dialects. You must use an IPA conversion that is universal to English speakers. In any case, you are wrong about about the IPA rendering even in non-rhotic accents. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wrong about the IPA rendering in non-rhotic accents. And while an 'IPA conversion that is universal to English speakers' is not something I 'must use', last time I did provide a transcription with ɚ and that was objected to. Timeineurope (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a claim that he is wrong without saying how. I'm curious myself. kwami (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pachelbel pronunciation

(this is a copy of a message I left for you at User talk:Cbrodersen, in case you are not watching that page)

Timeineurope, thanks for clarifying the Duden issue. Since you have a copy of Duden, could you please add a direct citation to the article? (i.e. page number(s), publisher info and ISBN) It'd be much better than just citing a webpage (the reference to which we can keep, just in case). --Jashiin (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

TE, you are evidently not capable of keeping count yourself, or you wouldn't have gone over last time. kwami (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so did you. Timeineurope (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, twice I accommodated your objections into what Aeusoes1 and I agreed on. kwami (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote 'we both have 4 reverts in 12 hours'. Timeineurope (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was being generous. I reverted twice, and incorporated your objections into the footnote twice. You simply reverted four times. kwami (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It violates the three-revert rule either way ('An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, [...]'). Timeineurope (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can make that argument if it ever comes up at arbitration. Who knows, they might even agree with you. kwami (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacra corona unita

I notice you reverted the move of Sacra corona unita to Sacra Corona Unita. Have you considered whether it might be worth editing the article to begin "Sacra corona unita, or United Sacred Crown, is a Mafia-like criminal organization..." instead of the current text, "Sacra Corona Unita, or United Sacred Crown, is a Mafia-like criminal organization..."? Note that currently the article uses English-language capitalization throughout, not Italian-style lowercase. --Quuxplusone (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infixing comments

I've noticed that you have a practice of infixing your responses within the body of others' comments. This can get confusing, especially after a few weeks or months and for people just joining the conversation. I suggest that you do something like this:

Commenter A: Led Zeppelin is the best band in the world.

Commenter B: That's assuming you like classic rock, which I don't. Even the most objective person would agree that Guns N' Roses is the best band in the world.

It's unfortunate that they're broken up

Commenter C: They're not broken up. They're just haven't made any new records.

Commenter A: "Even the most objective person would agree" B, you can't ever be objective when talking about likes and dislikes in music.

That is to say, copy the portion of the comment you wish to address and paste it at the bottom (or at least between comments) and italicize it. Regards. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical r

I've noticed that at Harewood ([10] [11] [12]), Harewood House ([13] [14] [15]), and Georg Solti ([16][17] [18]) that you've been continually reincluding parentheses around /r/. I understand what you're trying to convey, but this goes against the method of transcription that we've got laid out at Help:Pronunciation. You may have disagreements with the absence of the parentheses but revert warring is improper. So stop. Get a consensus at Help talk:Pronunciation before implementing this change to any articles. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you were writing this, I was writing about the same subject at User talk:Kwamikagami. The permissibility of such transcriptions is actually consensus. Timeineurope (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at that section in the archives; while I see a few people on either side of the issue, I don't see Kwami agreeing to it. Can you quote what he says that makes you believe he agreed to parentheses? This might be the result of a misunderstanding. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It won't matter, of course, if we use parentheses in the articles, but if we have them here in the chart, people will think the ars are required in all those articles which lack parentheses." So in October, Kwami found that parentheses are acceptable in articles even though they're not in the chart, and nobody has voiced their disagreement since, so this is clearly consensus. Timeineurope (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that an obscure aside that such a transcription, if used, would be understood should be interpreted as consensus on how to transcribe English. kwami (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said it wouldn't matter if we use parentheses in the articles, now you think it does matter, so you've obviously changed your opinion. Saying that using parentheses in articles doesn't matter, and saying that using parentheses in articles would be understood, are two very different things. Timeineurope (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TE, it looks like you've misunderstood Kwami's statement (perhaps he should have been clearer). It's pretty obvious that Kwami is against the parentheses given the context of his active support of attempts to create a "dialect-neutral" transcription--with which the parentheses would be at odds--and the absense of parentheses from the current version of the actual help page. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one way to interpret "it won't matter [...] if we use parentheses in the articles". Kwami has obviously changed his opinion since then, but that doesn't also change the consensus. In the sentence I quoted above, Kwami is contrasting using parentheses in the articles (which he is OK with) with having them in the chart (which he is against), so obviously their absence from the current version of the chart is irrelevant. While Kwami was never a fan of using parentheses in articles, he did say it didn't matter, and that became the conclusion of the debate (I was in favour of using parentheses; Kwami found their use in articles didn't matter as long as they weren't in the chart; nobody else chimed in). Timeineurope (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:TEB728 expressed opposition to parentheses as well. But I think we're getting a little caught up in an unconstructive game of who-said-what-when. The page doesn't reflect an acceptance of parentheses. Period. Not everybody has seen the talk page and so the agreement by silence (which is a pretty weak argument in and of itself) could very well be an agreement to the absense of parentheses. The issue should be brought up again in the talk page and the help page edited to reflect any change in agreement. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

teb728 was in favour of a completely different system, for which there was no support. He suggested using an r modifier or a rhotic hook in lieu of parentheses, but nobody voiced their support of that. His dislike of parentheses is no different from Kwami's dislike of them, Kwami did find them OK in articles, teb728 did not voice an opinion on the specific question of having them in articles but not in the chart. – If "not everybody has seen the talk page" were a valid argument, consensus would never exist on Wikipedia.

It seems that we will have to disagree on this one, then, as I continue to find that the page does indeed "reflect an acceptance of parentheses". Timeineurope (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your perspective. It would just be really nice if the page reflected whatever consensus we have. You and Kwami seem to have stopped reverting on these particular pages, so it's not as immediate an issue.

I recommend that, pending further discussion, neither of you should edit/revert a pronunciation over just the inclusion or removal of parentheses. Deal? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Roosevelt

Hi,

Do the middle syllables really have different vowels? kwami (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her uncle Theodore Roosevelt used the respelling Rosavelt, and I'm not aware of any dictionary that gives another vowel than schwa. Timeineurope (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacra Corona Unita

Could you stop you childish reversion of Sacra Corona Unita. The decision was to move it from Sacra corona unita to the proper capitalized Sacra Corona Unita. Unless you pretend to be more knowledgeable than the Encyclopædia Britannica, numerous academics, the BBC, the FBI, the Italian DIA and many others, your edit warring is rather silly. Grow up and accept that you are wrong in this case. OK? Thank you. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has just recently been through a move request, and there was no consensus to move (that is, an admin found that there was but changed his mind after I talked to him). It is not acceptable to move an article in the face of a recent failed move request. Timeineurope (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "talk" to the admin but simply announced you would revert his decision. If something is blatantly wrong a move is always allowed. - Mafia Expert (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't object to it, which he would have done had he disagreed (I did give him a couple of days to reply, which he didn't). The title isn't 'blatantly wrong', it is in line with Wikipedia precedence, which is to keep the original capitalisation of non-English names, as with Académie française. Timeineurope (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush

Seriously? With that logic, every article on Wikipedia would require an IPA pronunciation. Not only is there no indication, in spelling or otherwise, that "George Walker Bush" would be pronounced any other way than the common words "George" "Walker" and "Bush" but you'd be hard pressed to find readers unfamiliar enough with the gentleman to need to give the pronunciation. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's as simple as this: No matter how a name is spelt, you can never with certainty deduct the pronunciation from the spelling. Even the most straightforward-looking name might be pronounced in an unexpected fashion. And non-native speakers may be much better at reading English than pronouncing it. People may be so good at English that they could write a book in the language without knowing that the word cruise is pronounced with a final /z/, and so it won't help them that Tom Cruise's last name is pronounced the way it looks. Timeineurope (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you mean "deduce", not "deduct". And, theoretically, someone who never heard a news broadcast might rhyme "Bush" with "crush", while the pronunciation of "George" and "Walker" is far from intuitive (as can be seen from the different transliterations and pronunciations of "George", "Georg", "Jorge", "Georges", etc.) On the other hand, someone sophisticated enough to master IPA would be extremely unlikely to be ignorant of the correct English pronunciation of "George Bush" or even "walker".Shakescene (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I appeal to common sense. "George", "Walker" and "Bush" are words so common that it is unreasonable to assume that readers will think they are pronounced in any other way. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Guardia vs LaGuardia

I asked this question at the (then) Fiorello H. LaGuardia article's discussion page, because I wanted guidance for New York City mayoralty elections and have no firm views either way (there seem to be equally strong examples on each side: e.g. LaGuardia Community College's LaGuardia archives). Could you elaborate on your views not here but at the La Guardia discussion page? Shakescene (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the edit summary when I moved the article, La Guardia is the spelling used in Arthur Mann's book, the biographies by Alyn Brodsky, H. Paul Jeffers, and Ronald H. Bayor, and his autobiography – to which I can add the biography by Mervyn Kaufman, Ernest Cuneo's Life with Fiorello, and his sister Gemma La Guardia Gluck's autobiography. Unless you are going to claim that his name is misspelt in his own autobiography, I see no need to elaborate further. Timeineurope (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussion

Hiya — there's a discussion currently occurring at Naming conventions (names and titles) about "simplifying titles, through which it is suggested that we remove "prince" from royals with substantive titles. The proposal was "passed" after 12 days, with the input of only five editors. I strongly encourage you to take part in the discussion such that a properly-agreed solution can be reached. D B D 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Hello Timeineurope. There's no consensus to change to Elizabeth Bowes Lyon (at least not yet). Therefore, please reverse those changes you've made. It might be viewed as disruption. Seek consensus first before making page moves. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that articles can't be moved without a preexisting consensus is simply wrong and has never been policy. Articles get moved without discussion all the time, and that's perfectly fine. To move the article back to Bowes-Lyon even though The Times Style and Usage Guide shows that the correct spelling is Bowes Lyon, now that might be viewed as disruption. Timeineurope (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's sources that back Bowes-Lyon too. Suddenly changing numerious pages upsets editors (as you can see). Best to colaborate with you fellow editors IMHO. I can't (and won't) tell ya what to do; I can only give advice. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But are there sources that specifically say to use a hyphen? By the way, I didn't change 'numerous' pages, just two. Timeineurope (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British Royal family source (I thought). More importantly visit talk: Elizabeth Bowes Lyon so you can collaborate with the others. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that source (which is notorious for its many inaccuracies) simply uses the spelling with a hyphen, it doesn't provide a discussion of whether Bowes Lyon should be written with a hyphen or not like The Times Style and Usage Guide. Timeineurope (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment.

Leonardo D`caprio listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leonardo D`caprio. Since you had some involvement with the Leonardo D`caprio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]