From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Announcements: This is for stuff I don't expect a reply to
• Inbox: Incoming items I haven't dealt with yet

Contents 1 announcements 2 concurred 2.1 How to add articles to categories 2.2 Reply 2.3 reply 2.4 Organisation 2.5 (untitled reply) 3 Disputed 3.1 is/iz 4 inbox

[edit] announcements

• I have a doppelganger: gpfault

[edit] concurred

[edit] How to add articles to categories

Maybe you figured it out already. I noticed it looked like you tried to add Mario RPG to the Isometric video games category.

To add an article to a category you have to edit the article not the category. For example to add Mario RPG to the category you must edit the Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars page and add this text, usually near the bottom.

[[Category:Isometric video games]]

The game is already in the category anyway, see here. But because there are more than 200 games in the category you must click (next 200) or the letter S in the contents to see it.

Carlwev (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

He's not linked because if we linked him, we'd have to link every single character, then the page would be way too big. Besides, it is linked, in the template at the bottom. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Also, you should not remove conversations from your talk page, and you always need to sign your posts Grsz11 (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation

You said at Talk:Order of the Phoenix (organisation) that you did not oppose the use of British spelling in such articles, yet your contribution history shows consistent edits similar to this. Also, before making such changes as redirecting an entire article to a new title, you should discuss it on the article's talk page, allowing others a chance to give their opinions, which you failed to do. Grsz11 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

disputed because a title is metadata, and a parenthesized word added to the end of what is already metadata IMHO hardly qualifies as having a "strong tie" to the british stuff.

Point taken though about going to the talk page first. Shentino (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (untitled reply)

Just wanted to show you the Wiki-policy on the topic. If it's strictly related to Britain, use -is, if strictly related to America, use -iz. If neither, like most articles on here, just let it go.
In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Grsz11 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

[edit] is/iz

Please stop changing "is" spellings to "iz". "is" is a common British English variant, and should not generally be changed per WP:ENGVAR. David Underdown (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

disputed because I checked my edits again. Half of them were bringing the errant "is"'s into line with the majority of "iz"'s in the rest of the article. The other half dealt with stuff like Windows NT and McDonalds, which are distinctly American institutions. Both cases are valid exceptions under WP:ENGVAR Shentino (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said generally. Sometimes it's OK, but it's not necessarily somthing that's worth spending your whole time on and needs to be approached with caution. Webster says one thing, the OUP lists iz first in general, but allows is, other British dictionaries prefer is. The edits of yours taht I noticed there certainly did not seem to be any good reason for changing th espelling, and I wasn't the first to comment on it either. David Underdown (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inbox