User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 date project
2 It's
3 PlanetMath Exchange project
4 Wondrous numbers?
5 Links
6 Multi-index notation
7 Double-indent -- please don't
8 Obliged?
9 Orientated/oriented
10 47, 11^6
11 Sitaxsentan
12 Psalms of Confession
13 About the grammar edit on "Self-defence ..."

[edit] date project

Please make sure your code does not mess up links to Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996. Cheers. – Kaihsu 19:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your date project work is partially or largely automated? May I suggest it is too automated?

I am going to suggest that your date project work on Camp Iguana [1] really wasn't helpful. I am going to suggest that you should only wikify a date if there is some reason why a reader would look up that date. In the external links section, when would it be useful to let a reader look up noteworthy events that occurred on, June 13, or July 27? Maybe if the external link was to an article that reflected on the anniversary of an event like 1941-12-7, or 2001-9-11. But those are special cases. Excess wikification just clutters up an article, and should be avoided. Sorry, but I don't see the value in the wikification of any of the dates you wikified in this article.

I looked at your contributions today. You wikified the dates in dozens of articles today, spending about one minute per article. Forgive me if I am concerned that this wasn't really long enough for you to read the articles in sufficient depth to make a meaningful decision as to whether wikifying those dates makes sense. -- Geo Swan 22:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments below exlaining the reasons most dates should be wikified, and giving refernces to the Manual of Style. Rich Farmbrough 23:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed you "wikified" some dates on Leicester City. One of these datas was already in YYYY-MM-DD format, and thus correct for wiki according to style and formatting guidelines[2]. Guinness 18:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly correct sir, Rich Farmbrough 10:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You have wikified an Old Style date in Joseph Sunlight. Of course, that will link to the New Style date which I think is inappropriate. Any comments? Cutler 15:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this creates a non-ideal situation. However this is to allow date preferences to work. If you have them set you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Since linkage of the dates is very unimportant compared with the formatting, I think it's worth doing anyway. Realistically people are not going to click on the date link, and to link to the new-style date would break formatting, and posibly be obtuse. Ideally there would be seperate markup for dates, that wouldn't link by default. Rich Farmbrough 15:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's

Hi Rich! No, I’m not using a bot for the corrections I am currently doing, just a custom wiki editor. I have a registered bot for automated tasks, though (User:Diderobot). Cheers, Sam Hocevar 08:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PlanetMath Exchange project

Hi Rich, welcome to the PlanetMath Exchange project! I've modified slightly the entries you made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange/05-XX Combinatorics, to be consistent with the other entries and the style that has developed in the project. Hope you don't mind ;-) Thanks for contributing, It is a big project and we can use all the help we can get. You might want to consider adding your name to the "Participants" list at the bottom of the projects page here. Again thanks for helping out. Paul August ☎ 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wondrous numbers?

What are wondrous numbers? What are the wondrous numbers before and after 384? I searched the OEIS for the term "wondrous number" then a search for core sequences containing 384, but found nothing for this. PrimeFan 20:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Hi Rich. You recently turned "23 October" into a link on 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Not that it bothers me much, but it was already a link in the previous sentence, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) discourages multiple links to the same page on the same screen, especially with dates, so I thought I'd call your attention to this. Kiss L 10:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm also curious why you seem to be going around to numerous pages and turning every date into a link? The first time it is used on a page, fine, but otherwise it is overkill and muddies the page. Peyna 00:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is to allow date preferences to work. If you set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. Rgds. Rich Farmbrough 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-index notation

Hi Rich. Just one remark. You deleted a huge chunk of the article Multi-index notation without an edit summary and only with a minor edit flag. It took me a while to realize that it was you who put that fragment to start with, but it is good if you put an explanation next time. By the way, just before seeing your deletion I saw a (real this time) vandalism at real number where again stuff was deleted without explanation, so as you might guess I am not very pleased with text just vanishing unexpetedly. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double-indent -- please don't

Hi, I notice you double-indented several formulas in several articles. Please don't, it violates the current style guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) (against which more than several thousand math articles are written). To change the guidelines, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Don't be surprised if the double-colon usage is reverted to single-colon over time. linas 00:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Please rewrite or otherwise improve any of those articles (some sorely need it). However for future reference the style guide currently says:

When displaying formulas on their own line, one should indent the line with one or more colons (:);

Rich Farmbrough 10:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obliged?

Pardon my ignorance, but why did you put "obliged" instead of "obligated" in Anti-semitism? What is the difference between the two words? I thought "obliged" meant something similar to "pleasured" or something like that....

Thanks! --Sebastian Kessel 17:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Apart from a special use in biology obligate means pretty much the same as oblige. I am of the opinion that it is a back-formation from obligation that came about in the 15th or 16th century, and I find it ugly. For the wikitionary defn. of oblige see. Rich Farmbrough 20:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that I didn't know! :) Thanks! --Sebastian Kessel 20:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question about the similar edits made in the Liberty Law article. I think there is a difference between the two words; obligated implies there is a requirement defined by law or contract, obliged implies it is a moral or social requirement. (The wikitionary definition doesn't follow this, but unfortunately I don't regard it as being as authoritative as other dictionaries, which do make this distinction.) That said, I think obligated is the correct word in the context of this article. MK2 23:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

OED agrees that legal requirement is included, in its lengthy articles. More accessibly the American Heritage Dictionary says " To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means." Mirrim Webster has "to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance". Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 23:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's impossible to interpret obliged the way you're using it. But obligated conveys the meaning more accurately. MK2 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Until recently, the sense of this word has been restricted to positive and personal acts; and when moral duty or law binds a person to do something, the word oblige has been used. But this distinction is not now observed." Websters 1828.

"Obliged" is more common in British speech. That said, please stop converting one to the other because you find one "ugly". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Much obliged for your advice. Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Obligated has been in use for 500 years. I think you need to concede it's won a place in the language. MK2 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Who would have thought the old word had so much blood in him? Rich Farmbrough 11:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have been reverting the American "obligated" to the British "obliged" even on American topics and pages that were written in AmEn. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English states that if the page is regarding a specific country (i.e., the US) then that country's style of English should be used. I am refering specifically to the MLB, NBA and US political pages you altered. It seems like you are compromizing the spirit of the guidelines in favor of your personal preference. The word "obligated" conveys a much stronger meaning on these pages and is languisticly more appropriate in American English. Would you mind please stop altering the word on the pages that are already written in American English? Have a good day!--CrazyTalk 19:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo. Rather than ugliness, redundancy is a valid criterion for removing parts of words, and the 'at' of obligated appears to be redundant even in this context. I say this as an English graduate and as a lawyer. I'm not sure I would bother editing an article just for the sake of it though. DavidFarmbrough 17:14 (BST) 12 September 2005

alex is right and teal is wrong. obligate and oblige is the same thing

[edit] Orientated/oriented

Hi, a friendly heads-up: orientated is the usual British English spelling, so I use it in my articles. I appreciate the thought, though. ;) Mark ¹ 04:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

With both these words the shorter (orient, oblige) is more widely used, and acceptable on both sides of the Atlantic. The extra syllable makes one (orientate) grate on American ears, the other (obligate) on British. It seems sensible to use the shorter version, but <meh>, if anyone wants to change my edits back, I'm not likely to be bothered. Rich Farmbrough 12:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 47, 11^6

Thanks for the 47 from the Doctor's aria. It's a little reaching, but I've added it to my list. Thanks also for the note about 11^6. I see PrimeFan added it to 1000000 (number) (together with 1331^2) but didn't tell me about it. I thought this number was on that sequence about the dying rabbits. ShutterBugTrekker 22:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sitaxsentan

Now you've written sitaxsentan, would you mind also writing endothelin and bosentan? I now next to nothing about it but it sounds fascinating. JFW | T@lk 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)