User talk:Primergrey

Hello, Primergrey, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Thanks for the spelling checks! I'm glad people like you are around to proofread articles. Happy editing. ComputerJA (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Middleton High School (Middleton, Wisconsin) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and are part of the [[WIAA Big Eight Conference]]. Middleton also has an alternative high school (Clark Street Community School (CSCS), formerly known as Middleton Alternative Senior High (MASH),

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eric Scarboro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• after one weekend), Kirby salesman, balustrade maker at Ted Saville's, [[Streatham]], [[London]]), Driegersteller welder ([[Driestieffenbach]], [[Germany]]), teacher of technology (Washington

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four of your edits to the Reginald Corbet page destroyed wikilinks, leaving annoying red text. Please check before you leave this sort of thing, which someone has to clear up. In fact, the normal Wikipedia practice is to use numerals to distinguish members of a line of nobility or baronets, although I'm not sure it actually matters much. Either way, the whole point of a wiki is that it has internal links, so you need to take care not to break them. Sjwells53 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP guideline that says the second postion in an infobox should NOT be capitalized. The convention for basketball, baseball (see Paul Molitor) and football (see Mike Alstott). I think it is fine to pursue a change, but the 1000s of articles that are formatted this way do form a consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. Changing this has wide impacts and I would ask that you try to convene a consensus discussion if you really feel strongly about this. Rikster2 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Use {{Italic title}} to add italics to article titles, the usual wiki syntax does not work. I've already added the template to The Botanic Garden. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 02:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be more knowledgeable than I in reference to this subject. However, AP and DoD Style guides and even Wikipedia state Abbreviations should be capitalized. The full name of Marine Corps ground units of the infantry and artillery above the battalion are numbered and include the unit level, i.e. 9th Marine Regiment, 12th Marine Regiment. Abbreviated the word regiment is dropped and written as: 9th Marines or 12th Marines and when in sequence, 9th and 12th Marines instead of 9th and 12th Marine Regiments. Meyerj (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.19.246 (talk) [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please explain the changes you're making to this article, as they do not fit the format. There should be no reason to put so many words in quotes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primergrey (how did you know the colour of much of my [fake] TR7 Sprint, A TR7 16V?),

I have reverted your edit to Network traffic control because I feel that "burstiness" is very slightly more correct than "burst" in this context. My reason is that delay variation or introduced jitter can reduce the intervals between frames/packets without actually creating a burst (or clump as ATM used) of frames/packets/cells. This is burstiness without a burst. You can get this affect after policing/shaping by setting the bucket depth to allow for more than one frame, but less than two at a time. There's enough on the Leaky bucket page (just a bit) to work out the range of bucket depth, tau, or CDVt values for this effect.

It also retains commonality with the terminology in the first sentence of traffic shaping.

If you feel strongly that I am wrong in doing so, and that both usages should be changed, we can discuss it on Talk:Network traffic control or my talk page if you like. Graham.Fountain | Talk 09:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I thought I'd let you know that your success rate at "correcting" capitalization is only running at about 60%, from the edits that I have examined. That's high enough that I have not rolled backed all of your edits, but low enough to be a concern. If I had the time and inclination, I'd take a look at allof your edits and fix those that are problematic. Instead, I'd suggest that you be more careful, and push your average up. In one article, Photorealism, you even capitalized some instances of the same word and uncapitalized others. I don't know if that was deliberate or a slip-up, but if I see more examples of that type, I'm going to start losing my assuming of good faith. Please step it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question are simply, Photorealism, photorealist. This is what the MOS guideline appears to be. Like, Communism, communist (unless a Communist Party member). As for the 60 percent, if you are using the Wikipedia MOS I have serious doubts about that number.

Looking now at your other revisions, those were proper edits according to the MOS. Vice-chair is only to be in upper case when part of a person's name, Vice-Chair Smith, and such. General manager is a job title and should never be capitalized, like lead-hand or foreman.Primergrey (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not necessarily relevant to the specific edits discussed above, but titles are also capitalized when referring to a specific individual holding that title, rather than the position itself. E.g., "the King said" but "fit for a king". (MOS:JOBTITLES) Ibadibam (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, please do not uncapitalise proper names as you did with Lionel Everett. Names of organisations and honours are proper names and should be capitalised. Ranks should indeed be uncapitalised unless they are given immediately before an individual's name (although please note that when this article was written it was normal procedure to capitalise ranks on Wikipedia - this has subsequently changed). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Want to add my voice to this, the uncapitalization of proper nouns capped in RSs, the substitution of "their" to replace masculine pronoun to achieve gender-neutral. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your specialist fallacy creep is regrettable as it makes a sloppy looking encyclopedia Primergrey (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add another note, which is that names of flags are proper names, and as such should be capitalized (e.g. "Continental Colours". Ibadibam (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to use edit summaries. It really helps us save a lot of time. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spanish Armada may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Admiral]]. Howard ceded some control to Drake, given his experience in battle. The [[rear ]admiral]] was Sir John Hawkins.
• * Martin, Colin (with appendices by Wignall, Sydney: ''Full Fathom Five: Wrecks of the Spanish Armada'' (with

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primergrey, would you mind having a look at the discussion at Talk:Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy)? Much appreciated. Shem (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[

File:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Rip Chords page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for correcting my editing error to Shane Doan and not just reverting. appreciate it.Primergrey (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ;-) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to KPMG may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:KPMG HQ Amstelveen Netherlands.jpg|thumb|KPMG head office in Amstelveen, Netherlands

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited String instrument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third bridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have got know that you had requested a page move[2], without making discussion on the ATP. Please avoid it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibadibam (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you are listed as part of the Feedback Request Service under Wikipedia style and naming. There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages: [3] [4]. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Your contribution would be welcome The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Depth charge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[SM U-69|''U-67'']] on 15 April 1916, and [[SM U-69|''U-69'']] on 20 April 1916.<ref name="t27"/> ] The only other submarines sunk by depth charge during 1916 were [[SM UC-19|''UC-19'']] and [[SM UB-29|''UB-29''].<ref name="t27"/>
• The first to deploy depth charges from airplanes in actual combat were the [[Finland|Finns]. Experiencing the same problems as the RAF with insufficient charges on anti-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Depth charge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[SM U-69|''U-67'']] on 15 April 1916, and [[SM U-69|''U-69'']] on 20 April 1916.<ref name="t27"/> ] The only other submarines sunk by depth charge during 1916 were [[SM UC-19|''UC-19'']] and [[SM UB-
• The first to deploy depth charges from airplanes in actual combat were the [[Finland|Finns]. Experiencing the same problems as the RAF with insufficient charges on anti-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I undid this edit as I think many of the changes were mistaken. For example, generally when referring to the U.S. Supreme Court specifically, "Court" is capitalized. You can see that in section headings on pages such as United States v. Lara and Katzenbach v. McClung and Fullilove v. Klutznick. The same is typically true of titles of officials and of "Constitution" when referring specifically to the United States Constitution. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shades of green, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Service dress. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a bit reckless (not "bold") re a lot of your capitalization and pronoun changes. IHTS (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

really WCM_email 23:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Primer, thanks for your edits to Broodseinde et al. but did you know that it's a convention to use words for Allied army numbers and numbers for the Germans; "The French First Army" and the German 4th Army"? It's also a convention in these articles for am and pm to be punctuated with full stops, a.m. and p.m. It was one of the first articles I worked on and I wasn't as knowledgeable or consistent as I am now, so your copy edit has been generally welcome, I'm still blushing at the howlers you remedied.;O)) I wouldn't want you to waste effort on a misunderstanding. Thanks again. Keith-264 (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Formula Ford page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In May you went through the Sports Car Club of America article and did a wholesale change of all of the SCCA's various program names from capitalized to lowercase. These program names are trademarked proper names and thus were correctly capitalized in the first place.

I'm assuming good intent, but you appear to have a consistent track record of mechanically converting capitalized words to lowercase without first understanding why they were capitalized in the first place, introducing a lot of errors in the process. Please reconsider your approach. Stephen Hui (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting involved. I'm not sure what is motivating this full-court press against MoS, but it's clearly well-organized. I find this disturbing given the trend in recent years, as the regular editorial pool has dwindled, for WP:FACTIONalism to be on the rise. I looks to me like the goal is for MoS to be hamstrung as a guideline (if not simply eliminated) so that every random wikiproject (and wikiproject-like clique) and would-be page "owner" can impose whatever idiosyncratic style they want and prevent anyone from normalizing it to encyclopedic prose. I hope more people who recognize what MoS is and does for Wikipedia will speak up before things get genuinely disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I hope to see you involved, Prime. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RM discussions are frequently the venue for MOS attacks; thanks for participating in some of those recently. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, and as a purely procedural point, I take that you haven't read Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Etiquette. At the time, I could not go through it, but wasn't prepared to let it stand till I could, because there are clearly some changes that are objectionable, or at least worthy of discussion. I did put in the subject "discuss". But I admit I only assumed you would follow procedure rather tha simply re-revert.

I have a problem with a number of the points of tense, because, while there are still existing instances of TR7s, the model is no longer current, i.e. not being manufactured. Hence, I don't accept that "The Triumph TR7 is a sports car manufactured from September 1974 to October 1981" is an improvement. I would argue that it should be either "The Triumph TR7 is a sports car that was manufactured from September 1974 to October 1981" or "The Triumph TR7 was a sports car manufactured from September 1974 to October 1981", as an acceptable simplification. I have, however, corrected it to the former. I don't like some of the "has"'s instead of the "had"'s, etc., either, but...

"The original full size model wore MG logos" is clearly correct as it was: This was a clay "model car" used in 1971 in the design process and not a "car model", as in a version of the type. It no longer exists, other than in a few old photos, so I have corrected that too. It was this egregious error that made me revert the whole thing until it could be discussed.

I didn't have chance to look at the time, but I wasn't sure about "The Shape of Things to Come" as it is a direct quote. I just don't think you should change a quote without a specific note that it is presented incorrectly - even if you can argue that original material was incorrectly formatted you must be careful if you correct it as a part of editing. So, were the original source "The Shape of Things to Come", not "The shape of things to come", it might have warranted a "[sic]", but shouldn't have been corrected. However it was used in the advertising materials without capitals and so I accept that one - it just needed special, preferably individual, treatment as a quote.

The industrial action was continuous over 1977 to 1978 - the strike itself was from the 1st of November 1977 to sometime in February 1978 -, and the data range is not in lieu of 1977 and 1978. "1977-8" is correct as I understand it to be given in Ritter's 'Oxford Guide to Style' and so should, I think (but haven't checked), be in accordance with Hart's rules; however I see that MOS:DATERANGE gives that such ranges should be as "1977-78", and have changed it to that.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Primergrey. I've reverted most of the capitalization changes in your edit to 2017 Congressional baseball shooting. By my count you made 13 such changes, and in my view 11 of those 13 were incorrect. In eight of them you changed "Capitol Police" to "Capitol police". I don't see how this is in keeping with MOS:INSTITUTIONS: The Capitol Police are a government agency, and when one says "Capitol Police officer" one doesn't mean "police officer from the Capitol," which is what a lowercase p would imply (and which would make no sense in this case, since no one is from the Capitol). With the Alexandria Police it's somewhat different, as one can speak of a "police officer from Alexandria" as well as of an "officer of the Alexandria Police Department". However, in both of the cases where you changed the capitalization, the APD were very clearly being referred to as an institution, not as a general concept. Notably, in both cases the phrase you changed was "The Alexandria Police" (emphasis added), not just "Alexandria Police", which is an important distinction. Finally, you lowercased the R in Representatives before a long list of representatives. Here, I think it ought to have been quite clear that the word was being used as a shared title rather than a general descriptor.

In writing this message, I couldn't help but notice that a large portion of your talkpage consists of complaints about your approach to capitalizations. With respect, perhaps this is an area in which you need to reevaluate your approach? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fed up with all this B.S at Al Quie, Wendell Anderson, Deval Patrick, etc etc. Inconsistent application by the decapitalizing editors is just too frustrating :( GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the MOS for the use of italics in legal Acts Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#In_Canada, and it shows links to the McGill Law Journal which does use italics... so where in the MOS does it say we should not use them? Mattximus (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the issue. You seem to be applying the American convention on wikipedia to a Canadian article. Canadian articles follow a different MOS, found here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#In_Canada. This style uses italics for Acts. For example, see here: [5] They also follow different spellings, etc... I can re-add the italics in if you want. If you still insist American convention be applied to a Canadian page, you can also read the MOS exceptions (at the bottom of the link you sent me) where it says any title that is long may be italicized. That would also apply here. Mattximus (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to know which editor at whom your accusation of jingoism was aimed. Please do inform me.-Sb2001 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb2001: It was surely in response to you posting "Americans need to learn to accommodate the original language which they are trying to take over, ie English ... the language of England. This will never go through to the MoS. Push for an engvar if you wish, just do not try to enforce your ridiculous Americanisms on those of us residing in the UK." That raised hackles with a lot of people, and has a lot to do with why your reception here by me, EEng, and various other editors has been something akin to an immune reaction to a pathogen. I know we've hashed some of this out in e-mail and the situation is probably "chill" by now; just want to clarify that posts like that are not going to go over well. If you ice down the heat, the core of this sentiment is that Wikipedia should accommodate British editors to the extent practical, along with Americans (and Canadians and Australians, etc.); and that editors trying to push nationalistic preferences on other editors is disruptive. This is already the status quo consensus, though. WP:ENGVAR is as accommodating as it is practical to get, and Wikipedia style is a compromise; Americans have to adjust to things that aren't their typical or preferred style, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on leaving this alone because I figured I would only escalate things if I answered. But, once again, SMc has summed up the situation damn near perfectly. Any and all manfestos, particularly those with a nationalistic skew, are red flags to many folks here. My intention was not to insult you, and i apologize if I did. Primergrey (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits at copper. Aluminum is spelt aluminium in chemistry related articles per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) and IUPAC naming conventions regardless of the variety of English used in the article. SpinningSpark 21:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from above:

   Dead on, my friend. I am indeed the OCD guy, live and in color. My failure to moderate it, however, reflects careful observation of WP's strengths and weaknesses, one of the latter being ambiguous communication that ignores the fact that not only is much of our discussion automatically kept accessible, but also it supports finding out what logic has been evoked without waiting for responses from other equally busy people. Enjoy.
--Jerzy•t 20:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Oops! Dunno how that landed at top instead of bottom. (And (in case you hadn't already guessed that) i don't delete anything on others' talk pages -- tho i stopped to think thru whether it makes sense in this case.)
--Jerzy•t 20:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it, thanks. Anyway, buddy, I'm pretty aware of non-neutral postings and I tend to err on the side of overly-brief. That being said, I think I'll just perma-copy the one posted for me. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Primergrey, as you've now reverted the alternate names addition three times today, perhaps you wish to discuss on the article talk page or the WP:BIRDS project pages why you feel these changes are necessary (WP:BRD). 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rene Goulet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jobber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface ) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification of "Titles of people" that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, due to MOS:INSTITUTIONS the name of National-Anarchist Movement should be written with capitalized letters. It's name of organization, not of movement of national-anarchists as general. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primergrey, thank you for your edits at the above article. The usual convention in specialist literature is to use title case for the names of card games (e.g. Parlett, Dummett, Hoyles, Arnold, Morehead, Mott-Smith). I'm not sure why, but it may be because many of the names are normal words (e.g. Forty-Five, Hearts, Red and Black, Pig, Pitch) which could be confusing if they were in lower case. As to the names of cards, the sources use both "Ace" (e.g. Parlett, Dummett) and "ace" (Hoyles, Arnold), so we should probably not prefer one over the other. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't write that very clearly. The names above - Parlett, Dummett, etc - are not card games; they are very well known and respected authors of card game literature (and in some cases, researchers). They invariably use title case for the names of games and I've just given a few examples i.e. Forty-five, Hearts, etc. I apologise for the confusion. Bermicourt (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure the new changed link redirects to the article page correctly. I have had to make several new redirects after your recent changes; thanks, Kierzek (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riemann hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [6]

As far as I know, all MOS talk pages have their intended purposes stated at the top; e.g. WT:Manual of Style/Biography says: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Biography page." Clearly that excludes discussions like what you're talking about. I fully support compliance with the clearly stated instructions at the top of public pages; they are there for a reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be more explicit: "This page is ... for discussing X, not for discussion of style questions not addressed by MOS. Such questions should be directed to Y." And it could be an editnotice, not that anyone reads those. EEng 16:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An unintended consequence of that approach is that many editors would deduce that a public page may be used for any purpose they see fit, provided it's not explicitly forbidden. A page should say what it's for, not what it's not for. If editors need direction to RD, that can be handled like any other help provided to editors unfamiliar with the landscape; i.e. a comment within the wrong-venue discussion. And we can never encourage editors too much to RTFM. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page should say what it's for, not what it's not for, unless experience shows that the page is getting not-for discussions over and over. EEng 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only because editors have followed bad examples that weren't corrected by editors who knew better. It may take a little time and a little effort, but that can be reversed. After all, if editors are ignoring the existing usage instructions, they will likewise ignore the usage instructions you propose. The only effective solution in such situations is to change the quasi-libertarian "rulz r 4 fulz" mind-sets of editors who ignore usage instructions. If you want to try something else, go right ahead, but don't come asking me for comment when it doesn't work. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, discussion of how to interpret and apply style guidelines occur on the WT:MOS pages. Is that a problem? Examples? Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talking about is any time someone comes to a MOS talk page with a question about something not covered by the MOS. Questions about our style guidelines are one thing, but someone looking for general style guidance should be told that they're in the wrong venue. Post your advice on their TP, but keep the MOS TP for exactly what you mentioned: interpretations, applications and suggestions for additions. Primergrey (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this revert, none of the content in my edit originated with me, it was copied directly from this revision of the page, the last revision before an anonymous user vandalized the page by removing a random chunk of the text (including the header). If any of the prose being unsourced is a problem, it's a problem which existed before the removal vandalism. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 05:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Primergrey,

I'm curious about your edit to Pholidota imbricata. Can you please explain why you have "unlinked" some of these countries and not others, and why you have done so, leaving other pages (such as Pholidota) with the same links? Seems strange to have Sulawesi linked but not Sumatra and Santa Cruz Islands but not Vanuatu for example. Also, I don't understand why you have changed Queensland to "Queensland Australia" (when "Queensland" would probably suffice). I'm sure you have good reason but I would appreciate knowing since I have used these links on many other orchid pages. Gderrin (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Reading your response on my talk page, I would suggest there is some more cleaning up to do on the P. imbricata page, including on some of the countries I have mentioned above. I will attend to that. Gderrin (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[quote]

• Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.
• Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words

--Brogo13 (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[quote]

• Where more than one style is acceptable under MoS, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Primergrey (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Please see Talk:Child Protective Services#Requested move 30 December 2020. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 07:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes "logical"? Dyno Tested (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I trust your judgement, I'm pretty much still a novice after 13 years. Now could you please give some pointers/suggestions on the Plymouth Valiant page? Dyno Tested (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your pertinent statement about "Excuse me". --Jujiang (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Mirriam Webster online has 8 uses of "excuse me", only the eighth one is sarcastic or derisive. Primergrey (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Mirriam Webster online. Yes, only the eighth item is ironic, and it is informal. Thanks. --Jujiang (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to fix the caps at Fermat's Last Theorem; sorry I didn't notice soon, and got in late. Generally, we should use WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page) more to help style-interested editors notice such discussions, sort of like how wikiprojects keep their members up on discussions affecting articles they care about. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had posted notice there. Primergrey (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; yes, you did; thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, long year, lots of caps issues under the bridge. By the way, Canadian male, your turf is mostly terra incognito to me, so when I fly over on the way to Europe and back I try to get pix when I can see the ground, and figure out what I'm looking at. I got a few a month ago on the way to San Francisco from Amsterdam. See User:Dicklyon#Aerials from that trip. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Dick, Alberta looks pretty good from the air, but you should really land there once if you have half a chance. Drive through the blue Canadian Rockies. Check out Lake Louise and Banff National Park. (My name is "Grey" BTW.) Primergrey (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I been to both a few times, but not recently. I'll get back there. Is that your area? Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in BC, in the Fraser Valley. Primergrey (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. You had some serious flooding there this year, didn't you? My mom in law, age 100.5, is nearby in Bellingham, just finished with a bout of covid. Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the worst since 1990. Good news about your mother in law, both my folks got covid at the tail end of it. They were both fine, too. Bellingham's great to fly out of instead of Vancouver. Wayyy cheaper. Primergrey (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primergrey, thanks for your edits to the above article. Please be aware that reliable sources are split over the capitalisation of card names which means that it is not inherently wrong to capitalise them as e.g. Ace, Ten. Both are acceptable. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt. If sources are split then the MOS is in favour of lower-case. When it comes to language, I personally don't find thinking in terms of "right" and "wrong" very useful. Just conventions. Primergrey (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MOS on capitals needs challenging because it's been largely written by an editor with a zeal for lower case who comes from a region where lower case is the trend, who then enforces his POV. To state that there must be an "overwhelming" use of title case in the sources otherwise lower case will be enforced clearly overrides the Wikipedia rule that we follow reliable sources. And MOS:CAPS is applied by such editors as if lower case were "right" and title case "wrong". It has been used, for example, to decapitalise the name of a particular game where not a single source does so (actually failing even the "overwhelming" test). Years ago, Wikipedia made the very sensible decision to implement WP:ENGVAR and allow different varieties of English spelling. The same principle should be applied to those elements of style where, as you say, there is no right or wrong as far as reliable sources are concerned: e.g. the capitalisation and, sometimes, hyphenation of certain words. Especially as some of the variations tend to be regional. I've researched the capitalisation of card game terms extensively and both varieties are widespread; lower case tending to be a North American phenomenon. Bermicourt (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it does, indeed, need challenging, then someone should start a discussion to that effect. But the guidance is well-established and until it changes, it is the way to proceed. Primergrey (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Superkart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairing. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long discussion on the errors page. Annoyingly, the article refers to "a VHS", "VHS VCR", "VHS cassette", and "VHS tape". All of those are used, but damn, it should be consistent. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I agree that the article needs polishing. FWIW, I grew up in the VHS/Betamax era and I don't ever recall them being simply called "VHS". Most people I knew said "VHS tapes". Sorry if I came across as argumentative. Primergrey (