User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 95

Archive 90

←

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

→

Archive 100

October 2014

Sally Binford

Resolved

 – Someone got around to it.

I'm in an intro to archaeological theory class, and a friend pointed out that there's no article on Sally Binford. I don't have the sources to write anything more than a one-line stub... would you have anything? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not right at hand. Have archaeology text books in a box somewhere. I wonder if anyone's written a biography book about her?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can find. Information on her seems to be extremely sparse.[1] There's all of one mention of her in the Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

[tps] So that would establish notability at least? Curiously, before I looked at that link closely, I did a similar search of gbooks but without the quotation marks [2] that turns up her date of death as 1993 by suicide [3] (and hmm, "an explicit movie about elderly sexuality in 1974 titled 'A ripple in time'".) In addition, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned Oxford Companion yields "in addition to his academic publications, a key role in the formation of New Archaeology group identity was the symposium organized in 1965 by Lewis and Sally Binford at the American Anthropological Association in Denver (Binford and Binford 1968...)[4]. (Also he had six marriages, which is at least 3 or 4 too many, but I don't suppose you can put that in.) And from the 1996 edition "Lewis Binford and Sally Binford also conducted an analysis of variability in Mousterian chipped-stone artifacts; their work touched off heated debates that rage to this day. Although further research has undermined the findings of some ..." [5]. Buckets of notability. And three sentences at least. [Tiptoeing out now....] —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's enough probably to establish notability. I find plenty of other stuff with Google "Sally+Binford"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, like a Northwest Archaeology article, an interview, etc., just on first page of results. She's co-notable for all the notable work she's credited as doing with Lewis. He's the more famous of the two, but they're often referred to as a pair, like Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, or Marie & Pierre Curie. I don't know loads and loads about her, but I'd be surprised if she's not individually credited on various papers and such.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My professor today, although I don't know his sources, says that she was far more influential than it appears, but a combination of old-fashioned sexism and the popularity of Lewis combined to keep her from many history books. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

World Cat [6] —Neotarf (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Actually, this is better, an advanced WorldCat search by author, with all 55 publications listed. [7] —Neotarf (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Saw your note on Women in Red. She looks fascinating. I had never heard of her. This blog, though probably not useable as a source gives a pretty detailed account of her life and the fact that Binford was only a small part of it. The whole controversy over François Bordes which later erupted gets a whole new light, when you realize Sally had a pre-existing working relationship with him. There are also tons of people and places mentioned here that would help in locating sources about her. She definitely should have an article. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Just realized I didn't give you the blog link, sorry Susie Bright's blog SusunW (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC guidance requested

Resolved

 – Responded at RfC (and ended up moving it - it wasn't quite in the right venue).

I have opened a Request for Comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Animal_breeds. I'm a moderately casual editor, and I've never opened an RfC before, so any guidance in the conduct and resolution of this event would be most appreciated. Thanks! Krychek (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Krychek: I moved it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as it's a top-level MOS issue, not just a WP:MOSCAPS issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

 Won't fix

 – It was intentional in this case.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conformation. 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) 09:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian calendar

 Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Julian calendar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asturian Mountain 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:

• in the European Union|protected designation]] "Casin" after the Asturian town of [[Caso]]). The breed is also known as the '''Casina'''<ref name="ASEAMO raza" /><ref name="UNESCO Redes">{{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Software solution?

Per the capitalization discussion (round 20,000) at the relevant MOS page, I did think of one thing that actually could be a way to deescalate this whole thing: As I stated there, the truth is that the real reason WP uses sentence case and not title case (like the rest of the world) is not due to it being consistent with any style manual that I know of, but because the software seems to insist that Capitals and lower-case letters are two different things - for Caps, at least. I remember this from when I first started editing wiki, and how weird it was. I've gotten used to it, but it really is a problem, and not just on breed articles. I've seen capitalization fights over the names of musical works and so on. If WMF could address this somehow, we'd not only deescalate dozens of capitalization disputes (not all, but some) but also save massive bandwidth taken up by redirects from alternative capitalization. I'm not even sure where to start on this, but given your ability to spend more time online that I can, it may be something you are well-suited to investigate. Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. The first problem is that the debate isn't really about article titles, but about usage generally, with article titles being one case, and usage in running article prose being the other; the only differences between these are a) initial letter, and b) disambiguation. The second is that the MediaWiki developers are generally very, very slow to change anything. I'm "subscribed" to several bugs in the MW development Bugzilla site, and many of them have been open for a decade, and simply never get fixed. The answer is typically "the next version of the parser should make this moot", but this rarely happens. Only a trivially small number of the bug fixes (much less additional feature requests) I've been tracking ever get resolved, other than being dismissed as not worth fixing, too hard to fix due to conflicts with other needs in the code, or some other excuse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on a lot of things, but one thing no one can deny is that when you get your teeth into something, you presevere. Seems like poking WMF to fix a legitimate problem would be something you'd be good at. But is anyone actually incharge there? Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Brion Vibber is WMF's lead developer. As for the solution in question, we'd have to get consensus at WP:AT (for starters) to pursue that, since it would upend WP:DIFFCAPS policy. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, because if the feature were added, WP couldn't install it without not only moving all articles that were differentiated only by capitalization to new titles (think 1,000 contentious RMs over which gets the undisambiguated name), but also somehow prevent creation of any new ones in the interim, then roll it out. Otherwise it would result in database collisions, with two or more articles trying to occupy the same titles, in numerous cases.

An approach Peter coxhead and I had talked about before was a template-based one. It came up with regard to species common names, but could just as well be done for breed names. As a pseudocode example, we could have a template, {{Breed}}, that capitalized, or didn't, parameters based on input, such that {{Breed|p1=American|o2=Quarter}} would have all three words capitalized in default output, and {{Breed|p1=St. John's|g2=water|s3=dog}} would capitalized only the "S" in "St." and "J" in "Johns". But each field would have a CSS class, that could be operated on by custom user CSS and javascript. Parameters labeled "p" (proper names) would always be capitalized no matter what, but user scripts could be made to capitalize others by different rules, e.g. never or always capitalize those marked "o" ("official" breed name segments, capitalize by default) or "g" (generic segments, don't capitalize by default), and never capitalize "s" segements (species; if one needed to be capitalized, override it with "o"). This would be used as a meta-template, with a {{Dog breed}} template being used with #switch to call the meta-template correctly for the supplied breed name in the list inside the {{Dog breed}} template, such that {{Dog breed|St. John's water dog}} would translate to {{Breed|p1=St. John's|g2=water|s3=dog}}. People who hate having the species name appear after the breed name could even use the class attached to such a parameter to suppress its display.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

All of which would be over-complex. 1000 articles would be easier to fix than the alternative. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not my problem. I didn't create the complexity; it's inherent in the problem. I've offered a solution, and it would be functional. I may well implement it myself, and whether you choose it make use of it or not isn't my concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Capitals and MOS guidance

Not wishing to take up yet more space on the MOS talk page, I thought I'd make a further point here. An example of guidance that just doesn't work is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Compass points. How is an editor supposed to know whether a phrase is an "informal conventional name"? This isn't an abstract issue; I encounter it all the time applied to the distribution of plants. Should I revert this edit or not? I simply don't know. So we end up with completely inconsistent capitalization of compass points all over the place. The MOS must be useable by the great majority of editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the example you meant (the diff shows a "Defendent" -> "Defendant" change; "Defendent" is either a typo or a Briticism, and shouldn't be used in reference to a US legal case, where the term of art is "Defendant" (and we'd only capitalize it like that in titles of cases). There are lots of things in MOS I loathe, but #Compass_points isn't that troublesome to me. At worst it seems to generate unnecessary RM discussions sometimes, and some editwarring over "northeast" vs. "north-east" (I think it should explicitly cross-reference WP:ENGVAR there; edited it to do so). Regardless, compass points shouldn't be capitalized unless in a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange, when I hover over the "this edit" link above the "tool tip" shows what I meant, but clicking it goes to the wrong one; however, it was my error. This edit replaced "southern Texas" by "Southern Texas". How do I know if this is a "proper name" or what the MOS calls an "informal conventional name"? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We will never eliminate capitalization/capitalisation and ENGVAR fights on wiki. It is important though, to respect their origins. Some disputes, such as ENGVAR, usually can be resolved in a logical way - by showing respect to the people doing the actual work and the actual practice of actual experts. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not the problem here. I've extensively edited articles in US English (like Cactus) and am quite happy to respect its styles – such as not hyphenating words like "south-east" – when I can understand them (I confess to being baffled by US rules about "which" versus "that"). My concern here is that the MOS currently gives guidance which simply can't be followed because "informal conventional name" is unclear. I have the same worry about capitalizing breed names. At least the enthusiasts for capitalizing the English names of birds could give clear guidance: follow one specific published list. There's no such simple source for breed names. "Capitalize only those words capitalized in normal running text" can be followed by virtually all editors. Guidance in the MOS should be clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And where it is too "clear," some people will not accept a time for IAR - I dread the next round of "let's move American Quarter Horse" to "American quarter horse." At which point, I will no doubt spell out in full some variant of WTF! FFS! and start ripping my hair out! Frankly, I've had quite enough with just discussions about "Shetland Pony" versus "Shetland pony" (which seems a non issue, save in situations where we have a Hackney horse - called simply a "Hackney" in horse land (and not a "hackney", either... ) AND a Hackney Pony - all of which is why I favor letting the RS of experts determine the standard capitalization and not a bed of Procrustes approach where one size is forced to fit all, but few fit...! Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Well, that's precisely what's going to happen if you and Jlan and a handful of others don't stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either agree on a convention that doesn't sharply conflict with sources and with policy, or enough people are going to get fed up with it to just impose the extant rules, which will be decapitalization across the board except for proper names like "American" and "Shetland". I'm basically personally responsible for derailing a motion at WT:MOS just recently to do this, and if y'all won't settle for my alternative proposal there, it's surely just a matter of time, especially because I'll stop trying to head off any further decapitalization moves. I've done all I can to try to help you lot broker a compromise, but yous would rather fight, fight, fight about ever single letter and character. I'm done. The writing is on the WP:BIRDCON wall. You keep saying you're trying to follow the sources, but you're going about it in a cherry-picking manner, preferring only those that support the capitalization system you personally prefer, then switching to support those that help out your "friend" Jlan when he wants to argue the opposite case, etc. Waste of time. There's nothing at all Procrustean about following extant policies and following the sources that are actually reliable about what the formal name of a breed is (the bodies that issued them).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This has drifted a bit off my point, which was not whether your alternative proposal is "right" but whether it is practical. Breed standards are issued by many organizations, which don't always agree on the name, let alone its style. (Thus as the title of a breed standard, the US Kennel Club has "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" [8], the UK and New Zealand Kennel Clubs both have "Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)" [9] [10].) Putting in the MOS capitalize only where published breed standards consistently capitalize the name doesn't provide editors with practical guidance, unless you can link to a list of the "published breed standards" to be consulted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I think such cases are easily resolved:

1. Where 2+ breed standard bodies use the same name but capitalize it differently, use the less-capitalized version, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS (if in doubt, don't capitalize).
2. Where they use essentially the same name but a different spelling, use the WP:COMMONNAME (with a nod to WP:ENGVAR - prefer British English for British breeds, etc.)
3. Where they use basically the same name but handle an adjective differently, "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. Welsh Corgi (Cardigan), WP:NATURAL would have us prefer the non-parenthetical version.
4. Where it's a matter of word order only, e.g. "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. "Welsh Corgi Cardigan", WP:COMMONNAME.
5. Where is a long vs. short name ("Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. "Cardigan Corgi"), WP:COMMONNAME, with perhaps a preference for the shorter version, per WP:CONCISE.
6. Where is a separate breed with its own name vs. a subbreed in a division ("Cardian Corgi", vs "Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)" or "Welsh Corgi, Cardigan", use WP:SUMMARY style (main article at Welsh Corgi, and a section on the Cardigan variety) until there's reason to split, then treat it as a separate topic, noting in both cases that some registries differ on whether it's a full-status breed in it is own right, or a division of a breed, a subbreed.
7. Where is a separate breed with both a unique and derived name (e.g. Cymric vs Longhair Manx, and Himalayan vs. Longhair Siamese, and Exotic vs. Shorthair Persian), prefer the unique name if it is not uncommon (per WP:PRECISE and usually also WP:CONCISE, though it's possible some unique names could be longer than derived ones).
8. Where it just has two totally different names, "German Shepherd Dog" (yes, the dog people really insist on including "Dog") vs. "Alsatian", WP:COMMONNAME again, with perhaps a preference for WP:CONCISE.
9. Where a registry wants to include the species name, capitalizes as part of the former breed name, but a competing one does not, then don't do it.

• For purposes of these tests, use only established national and international registries that cover more than one breed (i.e. notable organizations).
• Look at capitalization in running prose, not headings/titles.
• Do not rely upon capitalization in those written in foreign languages unless they have the same capitalization conventions as English (which many not be any at all).
• Do not rely on breed "encyclopedias" and other tertiary works, as they are prone to overcapitalization of all entries, as are all other forms of field guide, as a form as emphasis for easy visual scanning.

I'm not sure that left any cases unaccounted for, and I just rattled that off, off the top of my head, so it's not that hard. That paragraph could be reworked into a checklist of bulleted rules in about 5 minutes. [I did it, it took 2.] Each article should, in its infobox, have links to published breed standards. This is very poorly implemented in most of the livestock categories vs. pet-animal categories, unfortunately. Name sourcing discussions may catalyze them to work on these articles to improve that. See Cymric cat's infobox for a good one, that's pretty complete and annotates where registries don't allow it or reclassify it.

PS: On which/that (from post above): Just write proper English as you like. Most highly literate North American and Commonwealth readers follow the same pattern, and if someone from more of a high school English level reverts you (I get reverted on subjunctive all the time), just move on; not worth fighting over. As anyone with a linguistics background knows, the which/that distinction is largely a fiction of Elizabethan through Victorian high society, and wasn't regularly reflected in lower-class writing, so the "wrong" usage has been around for a very long time, and been used by plenty of popular writers of "classics", like Charles Dickens. I prefer to make the distinctions, and to observe who/whom distinction, etc., but avoid getting into protracted arguments about it. You can often return a week later and fix it in the course of a more substantive edit, and no one will notice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so it can be done – if your "alternative proposal" is agreed, I hope you will write up the above at the appropriate MOS subpage. Is it worth the complexity? Not to me, but then I don't care about breed names, so now I'll leave it to those who do... Peter coxhead (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arab Winter

 Done

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arab Winter. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your behaviour

Rejected

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No further antagonistic communication is invited from either Justlettersandnumbers or Montanabw.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Your behaviour in this wiki appears to be out of hand. Please, in your own interest, get a grip on yourself. You must be aware that remarks such as "So SMcCandlish 2, Jlan 0. Shall we go for round 2?", "Game over, please try again" or "my leaping reliable sources style wiki-fu beats their crouching WP:IDLI style. Osu!" will appear to others as indicative of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You must also be aware of the very considerable resentment against you in some areas. Please consider very carefully whether it is wise to provide ammunition to those who might at some point wish to express that resentment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's called a sense of fucking humor. You and two other guys who hate my guts isn't a "very considerable resentment against" me, it just you taking things too personally. Get off my talk page unless you have something constructive to discuss, such as why you're pushing POV and anti-RS positions at articles like Arapawa pig. See you back on the noticeboards, since you evidently won't stop. The only battleground mentality is yours. I have plenty of diffs demonstrating WP:TAGTEAM behavior by you both and Montanabw, and treating disputes as a form of sport/entertainment you collaborate to foster more of. I do at this point consider it unwise to "provide ammunition" – your words – to you, because of your battleground mentality, lack of a sense of humor, and proven trackrecord of gaming the system. See WP:SHUN. Unless you and I have no choice but to communicate about something, in which case it should be done impersonally as if the other party were a machine, we need to not contact each other for any reason for at least a month. Same goes for you, Montanabw; I've made every effort to find common ground with you, but you personally attacked me at Talk:Arapawa pig again. I'm tired of your WP:GANG bullshit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bxt

Template:Bxt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bxtn

Template:Bxtn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gbq

Template:Gbq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles

Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossary

Template:Glossary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossary end

Template:Glossary end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Term

Template:Term has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Defn

Template:Defn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ghat

Template:Ghat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Response requested

Hello, SMcCandlish. You have new messages at Template talk:Tq#Removing the italics option.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Glossary templates

Thanks very much for the heads-up. I have weighed in. - PKM (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chinese as a foreign language

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chinese as a foreign language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary Webb

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary Webb. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)