User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 46

← Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47 →

Your move of Distilled beverage

Hello. I reverted your move of Distilled beverage to Distilled drink. While it may be true that "drink" is generally more common than "beverage" in most uses, that does not seem to be the case for this particular multi-word phrase. When I saw your move, I immediately reacted by thinking that the phrase "distilled drink" seemed rather awkward. At first I wasn't sure why. Then a search using Google Ngram confirmed my suspicion. The term "distilled beverage(s)" seems to be more common in reliable sources than "distilled drink(s)". In the context of (distilled) liquor, my impression is that a "drink" is a single portion served in a glass, not the bulk substance that comes in the bottle. A "drink" might also typically refer to a mixed drink rather than one of its constituent liquids. It seems to me that a drink is not something that is distilled. Something is distilled first, and then it becomes a drink later. (See also the similar comments I just made at Talk:Alcoholic drink.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I left a comment on Talk:Alcoholic drink. I understand your thinking (and empathise with it); however, Distilled beverage is now at odds with the cat Category:Distilled drinks and with the parent articles Alcoholic drink and Drink. I think your aim should be to get total acceptance for using beverage across Wikipedia in place of drink - and if you are unable to achieve that, restore Distilled beverage to Distilled drink so we have a consistency. Readers get puzzled with variations from the norm, and look for meanings that may not be there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I'll try to primarily continue the conversation at Talk:Alcoholic drink rather than here to avoid duplication and engage the broader community. However, regarding whether it is my aim "to get total acceptance for using beverage across Wikipedia in place of drink", I would not say that is the case – at least that is not my current thinking. This just started with a gut reaction that "distilled drink" clangs rather oddly in my ears. My suspicion seemed confirmed by a Google Ngram check. I don't really have a grand plan. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Philosopher's Stone

Hi SilkTork. I have responded on my talk page. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 11:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Native Americans#Requested move 18 September 2017

What are your further thoughts on this? (Respond at linked page). I've provided some dictionary entry links you might want to take a look at. The Transhumanist 17:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Collecting: A Reminiscence

Once upon a time, on 1 July 2008, you merged price guide with collecting. This did not last long, as the relevant anchor was deleted in late March 2009 as part of a gradual process of removing material deemed unencyclopedic. Only a couple of sentences remained, subsumed under other headings. And so it remains to this day. But the anchor itself, forgotten for an age, has now returned, summoned from the dead by my own edit under dynamic IP address 118.211.34.244 (I used an account back in the day but prefer anonymous editing). It now directs travellers to "Value of collected items", which contains one of the two relevant sentences (the other can be found under "History"). I just thought you might like to know. 118.211.31.176 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That's a blast from the past! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Please do not prioritize Wiktionary links over a disambiguation. It's very misleading. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I'm not clear what you are referring to, could you explain a bit more. SilkTork (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking back at your contributions I note that you reverted my edit on Defective on arrival. I think that might be what you are talking about. There was (and again now is after your revert) a tag on the article indicating that the article is a dictionary definition. One of the early principles on Wikipedia is that it is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Wiktionary was created to serve that purpose. When there are articles which are dictionary definitions rather than encylopedic entries, then we move them to Wiktionary, though we may leave a link per WP:INTERWIKI. I hope that explains my edit. If not, please ask further, or consult another experienced Wikipedian. I have restored the edit. SilkTork (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Malt drink?

I'm curious why you moved malt beverage to malt drink? At first this looked OK to me, but then I noticed the bulk of the article is about the term "malt beverage". I'm skeptical that "malt drink" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Is there a WP:RM discussion that I missed? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We've had several move discussions on "beverage" and "drink" because they mean the same thing, and they always favour drink - as in drink, alcoholic drink, etc. A few years back I suggested changing drink to beverage, as at the time we used the term alcoholic beverage, so there would be consistency, but I didn't get consensus. Since then I have supported moves from beverage to drink, purely for consistency, and will occasionally tidy up articles which may still have the beverage term in the title. However, where there are compelling reason to keep the term beverage then it makes sense to keep the term. Both "malt beverage" and "malt drink" are used. I did a search for "malt drink", and found (at least in the UK) that "malt drink" was quite common for non-alcoholic near beer drinks and for milk and cereal based drinks: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Given the trend on Wikipedia away from beverage and toward drink, and that my quick research showed a common usage for "malt drink" I went ahead with the move (which caused me problems because my browser froze and I rolled it back, which resulted in some kind of odd loop in which malt drink redirected to malt drink which redirected to malt drink!) Anyway, if you feel that this is one of those cases in which there is a compelling reason to keep malt beverage, then I'll restore it to malt beverage. This may be one of those American v British things, in which case the usual thing is to keep the article at its earliest incarnation, which was malt beverage. SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't say I have a preference either way, personally, even though I'm American. I do agree that consistency is a good thing. It's just that for this particular term, "malt beverage" appears to be more commonly used, probably due to the term being established by trade associations. Google Engram does show an upward trend for "malt drink" over the last 30 years, however. I don't mind either title; I'll leave it up to you. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of protection of Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot

Can you please remove protection for this page as I don't think it is a massive target for vandals anymore and it has been fully protected for the last 6 years and there isn't any need for protection any more. In case there is any doubt that vandals might vandalise it again, protection could go down to semi protected but full protection is a bit too much for this page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just looked and 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot (the current name for the article) is not under protection. I lifted full protection in Dec 2011. I also note that I lifted semi-protection in March this year, though that is not showing in the protection log under the current name, as it was done under a moved name of 2011 Iran assassination plot - log. Are you having problems editing the article? SilkTork (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It was just to fix a double redirect which has been fixed yesterday under a edit request. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' → SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

to

'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<span style="color: #347C2C;"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></span>]]''' → SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anomalocaris. I understand what you are doing, and it is useful. However, please ensure you check that the folks you are messaging have a signature that uses deprecated tags. I changed my signature over a month ago, which you can see on the very talkpage on which you posted your notice. Up to you what you do, but I suggest you at the very least glance at people's talkpages for their current signature before posting your message. SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

SilkTork: I did check your user talk page and I saw your signature with <font> markup in October, and I overlooked the one in November that abandoned <font> markup. Thank you for fixing it even before I asked you to; thank you for notifying me of my carelessness; thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your thank yous! :-) Keep well. SilkTork (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for 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 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SilkTork. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)