User talk:Randy Kryn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For entertainment porpoises only:
"Time: Illusion stirred into gravity"
- Motto of The Salvation Space Force
(new comments on bottom of page please)

If you've never seen...[edit]

. . .Veiled Christ, a statue in Naples, Italy, that depicts a knobbly-kneed Christ in the tomb, please give the image two or three clicks. This almost unbelievable 1753 sculpture ("how'd he do that?"), carved from one piece of marble, has one of only two Wikipedia article's which have to prove, with sources, that the artwork was not the work of an alchemist. Step right up, and don't miss the modern looking couch, the two tasseled pillows, or the crown of thorns and other torture things down by the feet. All carved from a single block of marble. Literally steps away from Veiled Christ sits another "how'd he do that?" sculpture, also carved from a single block of marble (or created by alchemy).

Thinking aloud while mentioning impossible statues carved from one piece of rock...although who can forget flowers made of glass.

One of life's pleasures[edit]

Watching Secretariat run his 1973 Triple Crown races in order while knowing three things: 1) Secretariat's trainer and jockey only realized after the second race that the horse could run full speed from start to finish. 2) While drastically held back during the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, Secretariat still holds the fastest time in all three Triple Crown races. 3) Sham - the horse Secretariat trashed like a dancing bear in the Kentucky Derby - still holds the Derby's second fastest time.

Here's the 1973 Kentucky Derby...the jockey holds him back...holds him wayyyy back, almost touching last place, next the Preakness...holds him back, and then: the Belmont..."He is moving like a tre-men-dous machine".

Vandal masterpiece...[edit]

An IP wedding proposal[edit]

July 8, 2022: during three edits in three minutes an IP proposes marriage on the same page as the above masterpiece, creating their own. Wikipedians have a romantic side, even the bots, so nobody reverted until I did after two hours with a note saying that it should be enough time and wished him luck. Does anyone know of an earlier proposal on Wikipedia, especially on such a good page for it and so perfectly played out - he seemingly decides to marry her right there, between two edits. Film scene scenario worthy (Hallmark, are you listening?).

This one time at band camp I vandalized a page[edit]

The docents ask people: "Find the cat". Letting the coolness of it lead me to break my oath as a Wikipedian, I now self-identify as a vandal. (in other vandal news, a visiting IP spent a great amount of time removing all the vowels from several articles. Wh ddn't thnk f tht?).

Always interesting[edit]

"The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." quoted by User:Kizor in the New York Times
"I think Wikipedia is quite possibly the best invention since the library." a quote by User:Srleffler.

See and listen to Wikipedia edits as they occur. Designed by Stephen LaPorte and Mahmoud Hashemi of hatnote.com, the link was copied from a user page, don't remember where, but deservedly displayed on quite a few as well as having its own article. Just who is making all this noise? Well...

...the size of our stadium[edit]

Here is another user's subpage about how many Wikipedians can dance on the head of a pin.

************************************************

Check this mystery out[edit]

Talk:Niece and nephew#Two generations???. An error has been prominent in the short lead of 'Niece and nephew' since March 2020, almost two years and nine months ago. The question "Why?" could qualify as a subject of a college thesis. It stayed uncorrected while 576,135 readers purposely came to the page, and if anyone noticed they didn't bother to correct it or tell anyone on Wikipedia, until an editor pointed it out on the talk page today. Fascinating on several levels. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Space turtles[edit]

I removed the statement from "See also". I recommend adding it instead to the final sub-section with a citation(s). LittleJerry (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea LittleJerry, thanks. I still don't know how many turtles were sent up on Zond 6, which seems like an important fact for Wikipedia to list. In case my cousin comes by to lurk, what we're talking about are the first inhabitants of Earth to travel to the Moon, two tortoises on Zond 5 and an unspecified number of "turtles" on Zond 6. Then Apollo 8 came next, and then Zond 7, with four more turtles! I guess the term "Turtles all the way down" has a truer meaning than thought. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Home away from home has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Home away from home until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move discussion[edit]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yo yo[edit]

I don't know why I'm bothering to add a few more to our crapalogue raisonne...is this an appropriate amount of detail? I want these Picasso pages to be either bursting with content or deleted, I can't decide! No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello No Swan So Fine, for someone undecided you've added a great deal of very good content! Nice. As an avowed inclusionist (and my mother was an inclusinist, and her mother before her was an inclusionist...all the way back to our cave mothers who said "Incluse! Incluse!") I say "burst with content". Wikipedia's Picasso pages and collection should be first rate and full, thank you for bringing it closer to the Picasso-standard. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3D models in infoboxes[edit]

On what basis would you argue that there is "no reason to infobox" 3D models? I would argue that it helps understanding just as much, if not even more than a two-dimensional image does when it comes to three-dimensional objects; further, they are in the page already, and I would say it is better to put them in the infobox rather than just putting them at any point in the article or within a "gallery" section. Further, the models do not display as particularly large, and the display could always be reduced in size rather than simply removing it from the infobox altogether. Thanks in advance for your response!

Mupper-san (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this on an article talk page. The Statue of Liberty infobox, for example, is already very large and adding an unnecessary 3-D image (which doesn't work unless additional steps are taken) makes it quite a bit larger and intrudes into the sections below. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Insertion of break into quote[edit]

Hi! In this edit, you inserted a line break into a quote. Unfortunately, while that may have improved the layout of the quote on your browser, not everyone uses the same font settings/page width etc as you do, and it breaks the layout for those browsers. Please let the browser's auto-layout feature do the work instead. — The Anome (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Statues of Abraham Lincoln in the United States[edit]

Just an FYI, I've created Category:Statues of Abraham Lincoln in the United States as a subcategory of Category:Monuments and memorials to Abraham Lincoln in the United States and Category:Statues of Abraham Lincoln. I've also moved a few entries about busts of Lincoln back to Category:Abraham Lincoln in art, since busts are sculptures but not statues. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Another Believer. Will check on these later, thanks for setting me straight on busts not being statues, seems the difference has eluded me. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello[edit]

another rando article on the kings of camp...feel free to rearrange! No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Instant feature. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constitution article[edit]

Aye Randy, long time, no see. Some time ago our long away friend TheVirginiaHistorian and myself added commemorative stamps images to the Constitution article, but somewhere along the line the info and the images were deleted, with no comment to this effect in edit history. I just restored one image, and added another, in the Commemorations section, which I just created. As a past contributor to the article, thought you might appreciate them. Best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gwillhickers, and I hope all goes well. I know I'll appreciate them even before looking. My feeling about postage stamp images is that they should be shown on all the topic pages that they cover (lurkers, find the pun in that sentence). Hopefully whomever removed them hasn't made a habit of that on other articles. As for Virginia Historian, I've got a feeling that either he or a doppelganger put up the George Washington fishery article (not sure though, and don't want to check in case I'm wrong, because it's good to think he comes back now and then when an inspiration comes). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same thing happened to the postal image in the Rutherford B. Hayes article...a deletion with nothing to indicate this is edit history except for "reduce crowding". Since then a section, Legacy and honors, was added by someone, which is where I restored the image to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor experience invitation[edit]

Hi Randy :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Clovermoss, what an interesting idea and set of questions. Thanks, I'll be glad to join in and will read the page for both familiar and unfamiliar names. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split proposal on the 1957–1958 influenza pandemic article for a separate vaccine article[edit]

Hi Randy. How's it going? I just wanted to bring to your attention that there is an active discussion over on Talk:1957–1958 influenza pandemic regarding a proposed split for a new article dedicated specifically to the pandemic vaccine and the US vaccination effort (and, I would hope, efforts undertaken in other places). This proposal was made following my last contribution to the article, which certainly may have created a WP:UNDUE problem. In this sense, there may be an argument to be made for a WP:SPINOFF. Considering your previous participation on that talk page, and our last collaboration on Talk:Spanish flu, I thought you might be interested. If so, please take a look at the relevant section and see what you think. Your input would be truly appreciated. Nabbovirus (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Nabbovirus, thanks for the note yet, being far from an expert on the topic, will pass on this one. It seems the split will occur and the editors involved are getting the general idea right. Enjoy the holidays! Randy Kryn (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough! Thanks for the reply, and happy holidays to you as well. Nabbovirus (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tarot card articles[edit]

Hello, Randy,

Over the past week, Dicklyon has retitled all, or almost all, of the articles about tarot cards, changing the capitalization of the article titles. I just noticed that you moved one article back to its original page title. Before taking on undoing more page moves, please have a discussion with this editor about the proper titling for this group of articles. I don't want to see a move war break out and having a discussion before reverting a lot of changes can help avoid this. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Liz, and happy holidays. Yes, I left a note on Dicklyon's talk page and also asked for a remove at RM because I couldn't move the second one found (Five of cups). These are all uppercased (see the ngram links I left at Dick's talk page) so either he or someone should take the time to move them back. Wouldn't think an edit war would be needed, Dicklyon is a pretty good adherent to ngram information and maybe just forgot to check the ngrams when moving these pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liz, Dicklyon, took one more article title that I saw was moved and ngramed it out, and yes, uppercasing will probably prove correct in all these cases. Hopefully all can be moved back (including the lowercasing within the article text which seems to have been included in the edits) without too much trouble of work for someone who has the tools to do it fairly quickly. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider the ace of * in n-grams, where it is clear that suits are not proper names. The popularity of occult tarot has in recent decades greatly distorted the stats, as there are so many insider books wanting to cap everything about it. But that doesn't make them proper names. We already had the suits lowercased in Suit of swords etc. since 2008. So it seemed logical to fix this. Looking at the ace of swords in older books, before the occultism so dominated, the capping is clear not "consistent". Most of these card names were not consistently capped even in their own articles, which also in many cases had evidence of never having been looked at for capitalization, e.g. with title-case headings. So I did some routine case fixing. Not finished, but happy to pause while discussions happen. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your long answer and research. You are talking of playing cards and suits of tarot cards, while the article I reverted back to its longtime uppercase was Ace of Cups which, as stated in its hatnote and article, is about the tarot card. The names of individual tarot cards, although as you point out not the suits, are commonly known and used as proper names, per the overwhelming uppercasing of their ngrams. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liz, I've reverted the Aces, would it be okay if I continue to revert these moves? It would be nice if Dicklyon cleaned up the moves himself, and I can help if we divide up the task. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be cleaning up the other direction. Can't see why you'd cap "a card used in Latin suited playing cards". Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ngrams. These cards all have overwhelming ngram support for uppercase. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seasons Greetings![edit]

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, and may the heavens give you many gifts in the year to come. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Christmas[edit]

Thank you Martinevans123, and best Christmas wishes to you too. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Johnbod, and Merry Christmas to you as well. I'll be sure to read the linked article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Randy Kryn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,

Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Dicklyon, and to you and yours as well. Christmas comes but once a year, but on Wikipedia Christmas is edited all year 'round. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Sketches of the Life of the Great Priest[edit]

paragraph break in lead (wall of text)

Hi, I've noticed you've done this kind of thing before. May I ask, what resolution(s) are you viewing Wikipedia in, and what kind of devices? It is not a wall of text on my desktop or on my mobile screen. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See display resolution. I'm guessing you're using an older computer and monitor? Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the lead wasn't a huge wall of text like some. But I probably thought it was enough of one to break up the paragraph at a logical break point (a lead of a single kind-of-large paragraph broken into two paragraphs wouldn't lose readers). I've never looked at Wikipedia on mobile, and view it at 125% (the default size is, to me, is way too small, especially for anyone over 40, and typing that makes me think that Wikipedia's default size should be an issue to address, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
p.s. just looked at it at 100% with the two paragraphs combined, and yes, it still seems like it was a wall of text (as well as confirming that 100% is a very small default setting). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just out of curiosity, when you have some free time, could you look at the link to display resolution and tell me what resolution you are using? If you can’t do that, you can go online and use a resolution emulator that will allow you to look at Wikipedia using different resolutions. My guess is that you are using an older laptop or desktop that has a smaller or lower resolution, hence the problem. The rule of thumb is that we shouldn’t edit based on our personalized resolution but on a generally agreed standard. Of course, these standards change and interpretations vary. This page has some information that might help you. You can then compare it to your own. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at the in-house link and it's all Greek to me (not tech savvy). But I have a pretty good-sized monitor on a 2017 laptop (chesttop in my case, for ease of typing and not wanting to sit for hours at a time). I'll check the test page link at some point. Thanks. In any case, most people probably know enough about their computer to change their resolution size. But I doubt I'm the only editor or reader who thinks that Wikipedia's 100% default is too small. There probably are still a percentage of people who don't read Wikipedia because the letter sizing is smaller than some other sites at 100% (just a guess). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s a super interesting topic. I don’t honestly know what the right answer should be, but I am in agreement that readability needs improvement. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New articles[edit]

I’m curious if you maintain a list of "wanted articles" given your many interests. I would like to go on an article creation spree early next year, so if you have a list of missing articles that we should have, please share it. I’m sure you can come up with something. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, don't have a written list, although I've had a few paintings in mind and have noticed gaps in other topics. Thanks for the question, will mull it over and make notes for a couple days. What areas were you thinking of focusing on or feeling called to? You probably have at least one major one that's been waiting patiently. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I’m trying to grow Hawaiian gardenias, which are very temperamental, so I would like to be writing about it. But to me, it feels like it’s too safe and indulgent, as I would prefer to expand my comfort zone and write about new things and ideas, with the goal of making people think, learn, and feel something. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noticed that 'Hawaiian gardenia' isn't yet used as an alternate name on the plant's article, but is a redirect. Probably should be? A nice goal, what articles now missing on Wikipedia would make people think learn and feel while extending your interest style. More to mull over. America's founding events have entered the 250th anniversary cycle, for example, so there may still be missing things there that may fit your criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm growing, Gardenia brighamii. The linked info says G. mannii and G. remyi are also available, but I have not yet found specimens to grow. One thing I've discovered, is that a lot of the academic (University of Hawaii botany department) and amateur material on the species is at odds with each other. I think there may be several reasons for this, one of which could be the displacement of the plant from its native landscape, and the use of it in urban settings as an ornamental. The requirements for successfully growing the plant are different for each, and the academic articles don't make the distinction, so there's room for improvement here. For example, if I had followed the University of Hawaii page recommendations, my plant would have died a long time ago. It doesn't take into account a lot of the requirements for growing in urban areas, describing instead perfect (or abstract) conditions that 99% of people growing the plant will never have to deal with. It's extremely frustrating for me, because I see this kind of thing occur throughout the academic literature. I would like to think of the university system as a paragon of education and learning, but time and time again, we see that practical, real world experience recorded by amateurs often has a larger benefit. One would think academia would try and bridge this gap, but still the problem continues. This is especially true in public health studies, where many of the research projects are instigated by amateurs who can't get officials interested in the environmental health problems in their communities. A current, local example of this problem is the 2023 Hawaii wildfires, particularly the conflagration of the town of Lahaina. The literature shows that this kind of destructive event was well known and had occurred several times before. And before the fire, amateurs had attempted to raise consciousness about the problem, with a small group of people trying to prevent it by lobbying and fundraising for an additional fire station (in the southern end, IIRC) which was fought tooth and nail by the local government and was never built. If I understand the issue correctly, the local government even stopped them from funding and building it. Native Hawaiians spent years discussing development and water rights concerns, which were often ignored. I myself wrote a bit about Lahaina here in the early 2000s and 2010s, and learned that I should not move there because of the fire danger. I even said this to a coworker who encouraged me to move there. All of this could have been prevented. The same thing could be said about almost every major disaster in the United States. The government, and by extension academia, operates reactively instead of proactively with prevention in mind. (Physician Peter Attia even goes so far as to extend and make this same claim about the entire medical industrial complex, arguing that the current practice of medicine is stuck in an old, reactive model that is no longer relevant in the modern era.) I also remember learning about the potential of a Hurricane Katrina-like event in New Orleans in the late 1980s, and reading about how the infrastructure was not up to the task. This was almost twenty years before the town was hit. There's a fundamental, systemic failure of academia, government, and the private industry to function on behalf of the interests of the public and society. That needs to change. I see this pattern play out almost every day, and I'm not talking about just Hawaii; I just got back from a trip to New York over the holidays and I saw the same thing there. There's this disconnect between modernity, or how things are now, and our institutions, models, and systems for everyday life, which are deeply rooted in the past. How do you bridge this gap, without falling into the trap of slow-churning, step-by-step incrementalism, the kind that took 100 years from the end of slavery to the first major civil rights legislation, a change that should have taken months to several years instead, as only one example? We are all prisoners of the past, held fast by the chains of the status quo. It's an ideological quicksand that few can escape from, while the future continues to flow, without stopping. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, the name Hawaiian gardenia should be listed on the page as an alternate name? Thanks for the commentary, interesting. You seem to have a new article idea in there somewhere. Your interest in finding topics to write about will let something click naturally. I haven't focused much on suggestions, you'll probably catch on to topics on your own, and per the patterns that you're focused on maybe things will emerge. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I understand it, not necessarily. "Hawaiian gardenia" is just an informal designation for at least three species, of which Wikipedia currently has only one article, which is why the redirect targets Gardenia brighamii. I will try to clarify this in the coming days. Thanks for bringing it up. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: It looks like the older literature exclusively refers to Gardenia brighamii as the "Hawaiian Gardenia", which also explains the current redirect. It is not yet clear to me why the other two species weren't originally included in this designation, but I have noticed that more recent literature doesn't even use the term "Hawaiian Gardenia", so this may be an older, vernacular term that is an example of informal and popular usage, or it has fallen out of common usage. Either way, it's likely that people still use it, but it no longer refers to only one species, however, one could argue that since G. brighamii is the more common species (due to landscaping), it is probably mostly identified with that species. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is now clear why "Hawaiian Gardenia" mainly refers to one species. The other two species appear to be much more difficult to obtain (impossible, even?), whereas G. brighamii is a smaller shrub that might be the only commercially available Hawaiian species that people can easily purchase and grow. It looks like all of the available plants for sale are related to the last tree on Oahu, which only became available for purchase in the 1990s, while export was only legalized in the 2000s. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that's an interesting story. Topped off with an Adam and Eve tree. Thanks for "digging" into it. Four green thumbs up! Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Randy, I'm wondering if you can help me out with another article, as this discussion jogged my memory. I had been meaning to create an article about the general concept of a world park. There are various permutations of the idea, and I wanted to create a centralized article that discussed it. Wikipedia has one article on the subject, but for the life of me, I cannot find it! Sometimes I lose track of topics that I follow. I believe the article discusses the latest proposal, possibly related to the United Nations, but I can't remember. Anyway, the science-fiction-like idea involves converting a large percentage of the Earth to protected park and wildlands, not just for biodiversity, but also to protect life as a whole (ecosystem services, etc.) and to fight climate change. There are other interesting aspects of the idea that I don't want to go into quite yet. The idea has been floating around in various forms since at least the 1970s. If you could help me find more information about this, I would appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found two of the articles:
The problem is that these are only two of the proposals, and it only goes back a few years. The original idea is much older, and the article I want to write would talk about the overall history, including all the different proposals. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. A nice idea. I can't promise to help write or mold it, looks like you have a concept in mind, but when you start I'll watchlist it. Will read the two links you left just above. A "world park" sounds like a great topic, almost what things were like before humans started chopping away at the forests and landscapes. Jaguars, for example, used to roam across the entire U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fascinating, as I didn't know that about jaguars. There's now a third topic that the general article could address, namely, the hijacking of the world park idea by the super wealthy. Recently, Jeff Bezos appropriated the idea while expressing his pseudo-futurism to the media. He's saying that the majority of humanity will move off-world, along with polluting industries, and the Earth will be treated as a national park for space tourists. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon, so who knows what Bezos has been smoking. But like they say, when you're rich enough, they let you say anything, and nobody will tell you "no". Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bezos and others should be funding Wikipedia to the tune of hundreds of millions a year. In any case, you may have noticed that I don't talk major party politics on Wikipedia, and have rarely ventured into controversial present-day political subjects. A few times but not a habit. I do agree with the links you left, nature needs a helping hand from humans (who, of course, are part of nature). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you have a moment, no rush or anything, could you help me figure out the origins of this world park idea? To me, it sounds like it came directly out of the ecological literature of the 1970s, but perhaps it arose even earlier. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Encounters with the Archdruid was published in 1971, so I’m convinced at this point it came out of the 1970s and not before. Update 2: Ye olde memory is starting to return! I’m pretty sure Wilson talks about the history of the idea in Half-Earth up above. I will consult the book later today. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're on a roll. Gather no moss. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Just a small followup. I wasn't actually talking about politics in my little rant up above. I was discussing the psychology of short-term thinking, but I can see how it could appear to be political. Anyhoo, just wanted to let you know I was able to trace the maturation of environmental ethics to the early 1970s, but it wasn't until the 1990s that the antecedents of the world park idea (global nature preserve) were worked out, with Reed Noss writing about the idea between 1992 and 1994. This checks out, as it was 1994 when I first heard people talking about it. Apparently E. O. Wilson publicized the idea in 2002, followed by a number of groups working together to implement the idea in 2009 as the Nature Needs Half movement. Wilson then returned to the topic again in 2016, devoting an entire book to the idea. 30 by 30 was launched in 2020, which significantly weakened the concept. That's where I'm at. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have chosen a great topic. World Park and World park presently redirect to Transboundary protected area, which you will run rings around. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statue of Clemente[edit]

Just a thought but I'm not entirely sure if its allowed: we can make this page into the one in Pittsburgh because this isn't really a statue and definitely not a notable nor does it have any historical significance. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Omnis Scientia, and Happiest of New Years! The Louisville Slugger company has their statue collection, I think there are seven now. So the statue there seems notable. But yes, the other two statues deserve pages as well. Where's that Clemente fan who started the legacy page when we need them! Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They actually wrecked havoc on the main page, moving quite a bit of material from that to two pages. I wasn't sure what they were trying to achieve with it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I am creating pages for baseball statues at ballparks or their hometowns/states. I noticed this one had neither of those connections. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your creations. I guess the Louisville Slugger company feels it has a stake in the game because of their equipment heritage, so they've started up a statue collection. Somebody there had a good idea and put it into motion, and as long as newspapers are willing to print articles about them they probably become Wikipedia-notable. As for the fan editor, it's good you've kept an eye on their progress and related havoc. I know legacy pages aren't a regular thing here, but as long as it was created it fits with other legacy pages which are allowed to remain, so where is the line drawn once one or two get by. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing with legacy page is that it just doesn't describe Clemente's legacy in any way that is relevant. It was also made at the expense of the main article's quality. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the user, they lost interest in the page soon afterwards. I don't think they've been active since they created them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh and Happy new year to you as well! Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. No Egg Nog No Cry. You may be right about the legacy page, and other editors will weigh in to further clarify Wikipedia's stance on how far it can go with mainspacing legacy pages and what content is allowed. Quotes about a person do provide legacy context, so mainspacing those seems fine (to me at least, I don't know how many readers actually know about let alone find Wikiquote). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure myself about that but opinions or recollections of other people aren't necessarily true. And in baseball, as you may well known, contradicting stories and accounts are very common and need to be taken with a grain of salt. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!
Hello Randy Kryn:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz(T) 20:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, and a full, happy, prosperous in mind and material year to you. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lift a pint...[edit]

Randy, we definitely need to meet sometime. Maybe this is the year. You can perhaps help me understand what motivates you to be such a fan of capital letters, over following WP guidelines. But not for a few months at least. I'm off to Australia for a few months first. Take care. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dicklyon, enjoy Australia, that should be interesting. Maybe you can connect with some Wikipedians there. Probably like Montana with kangaroos. I look forward to seeing what photos you post from the expedition. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you see my pix from last year's 5 months down under? See my user page. This time we'll get more out west. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"...a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge."
Actually no, didn't have attention on your userpage during or after that trip so have just taken a look. Nice images. What's up with that library that has only white covered books with no writing on the covers, your image of it has a Twilight Zone quality. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. It's an artwork by Wilfredo Prieto. Impressive both that it was created and that a space was given to display it. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was one very strange art museum. Great fun, really. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For people who may wander by, Dicklyon took some nice photos of the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA), an obvious play on MOMA. His user page is a nice photographic trip summary of some areas of Australia. I'll have to read the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar for Barbie[edit]

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
I think editors who with sincere and reasonable opinions often refrain from doing so when another editor disagrees with them. I’m glad you so kindly but firmly disagree with me here, as you changed my mind. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much Pbritti, and thank you for the cites you've added. Nice to work alongside good people like you. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you can thank PRRfan for the references! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the correction, and both of you are doing nice work by keeping your attention on the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to both of you: Randy Kryn for modeling an interesting way to respond to a revert, and Pbritti for your graciousness. PRRfan (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:1949 in spaceflight has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:1949 in spaceflight has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Mason (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The un-crediting of notable artists' works that are used as the lead image in an article's infobox...[edit]

Yeah, I agree - I also think they should be retained in the caption. I was looking through the edit history of MOS:CREDITS and it's kind of interesting... Take a look at this 2009 edit that added the sentence "If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate." Up until 2009 MOS:CAPTION simply said "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page."
Now, let's take a look at "Unless relevant to the subject"... Does this mean be relevant to the article/text/words or relevant to the person the article is based upon. If relevant to the person themselves, it seems to me that how the subject is regarded, how they are remembered, how they are seen by subsequent generations is important. How would people think of Washington without Gilbert Stuart's portrait? Lol I think the meaning is probably the subject/article not the subject/person but anyway...
I don't honestly know if I have the mental wherewithal right now to wade into the trenches on this issue seeing the pushback on some of the associated articles but I at least wanted you to know that the mass deletion of these long-standing captions that credit the painters who created the artworks...well, it bothers me too. That's all. Shearonink (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Shearonink, good research. Maybe you can edit this post a bit and post it at the discussion at Talk:Abigail Adams#Caption. The point of crediting artworks to their notable painter or sculptor in captions is well established in MOS, with links at the discussion. Seems an easy one, people who edit visual artwork pages just take it for granted that artworks are routinely credited on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yitzchak Mirilashvili assistance[edit]

Hello Randy Kryn. Please take a look at the pending edit request I posted on Yitzchak Mirilashvili's Talk page. I am asking that the language of the Philanthropy section be changed. Currently, the content of the first subsection there is excessive, with a lot of extraneous detail having nothing to do with Mirilashvili himself. Furthermore, the language is not-NPOV (suggesting that making charitable donations is a crime); the resolution of the investigation- that Mirilashvili was found to have done nothing wrong- is not included. Your recent editing of another individual listed in the Category:Billionaires_from_Georgia_(country) was substantive and helpful. I'm grateful for your time and assistance. Thank you, January2424 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for asking, but will decline because the topic is not one I'm familiar with and I seldom do requested page edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

founding fathers: an un-capital idea[edit]

The discussion—prolonged argument, actually—over the capping of FF is disappointing on several fronts. Google n-gram is now being touted as a way of analyzing usage, which works only if quantity is a greater value than scholarship. Meanwhile, the back-and-forth has also veered off into matters that have nothing to do with the MOS. Of course, I realize our fellow editors mean well, but here, I'm seeing a different ethic than I thought WP was about: an approach that would reduce us to bean counters. The next logical step is algorithms.

Pardon me while I vent. I spent several hours last night identifying 15 notable writers who use caps and along the way came up with two who don't and two who avoid the term entirely. I know things aren't about to end there. The wheel can only go round and round. Having seen your posts and the replies, I suspect you may feel the same, So I'll amuse myself and hopefully you with an old joke. The setup is known as the Infinite Monkey Theorem, a philosophical meme on the law of probability dating back to Aristotle's times.

If an infinite number of monkeys had an infinite number of typewriters, eventually they would rewrite all the great works (sometimes, all of Shakespeare's). That's the setup. So we take you now to the scene of the primates randomly pecking away on their instruments. Not a sentence has been produced over the 20-some years they've been at it. But wait, this just in. Monkey 1,452,832 may have something. I'll read it to you: "To be or not to be, that is the gazertenplat".

Interesting, but less amusing is the fact that some virtual monkeys are already at work, though just a word at time: CNN story]. And if this communique is inappropriate, feel free to deep six. Allreet (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allreet, thanks, was signing off now, will read and get back to your note later this evening. Nice work on the deletion attempt. Maybe Gwillhickers would have an interest in discussing these latest moves. A clever section head, could have that witty prose at the recent United States Capitol rotunda (Rotunda) discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Allreet, just read your note, and thank you for your research on the casing of Founding Fathers, which does a good job of countering encyclopedia editors who want to change it. That was a very interesting article you linked, thanks. All hail to typing monkeys everywhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was afraid this would evolve into another RfC, a royal pain and waste o' time. Well, having done some more digging, I'm sure I can rustle up 40 top scholars as evidence. Plus there's Founders Online (National Archives), Encyclopædia Britannica, and as another fellow ed dug up, the General Printing Office Style Manual: An Official Guide to the Form and Style of Federal Government Publishing. I for one have no intention of monkeying around. And, hey, nice to hear from you. Allreet (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You too Allreet. It wouldn't be an RfC (see WP:RFCNOT) but a Requested Move to lowercase the page title, if it occurs at all. With the evidence you've researched and provided, I think you may have saved the day for uppercased FF. Just in time. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'm about to post 10 more. I'm actually not running into too many "majors" who prefer ff. In fact, Walter Isaacson is the only one today, and I "elevated" Joseph Ellis from ff to FF status. Cheers. In fact, I think I'll drink to that. Allreet (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, as always, you've taken a controversy to heart and used that to create valuable research. Yay! Randy Kryn (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BRD[edit]

Hi Randy, I'm not sure what a case run is but I'm confident you know what BRD is. The lower case "R" in this edit is a perfectly acceptable link that doesn't need to be changed, per the guideline on redirects that are not broken. If I'm missing something obvious here, it's best to discuss that rather than edit warring as you have. Otherwise I would expect you to repeatedly have this issue in future case runs. czar 00:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czar, have had the issue in hundreds of past case runs and nobody has complained. In this case please see the 'Mexican revolution' pages left to uppercase to their proper link. Some of the case runs done in this way have hundreds of incorrect links. To keep track of what's left to do, the internal incorrect link has to be removed. The guideline says that changing to direct link is allowed in some cases, and I'd assume casing-runs are one of them. If not, it should be added. Thanks for keeping track of do's-and-don'ts, but hopefully give a bit more credit to editors that they are acting in good faith and for a reason. Many of those editors will revert once to write an edit summary explaining to the reverter. You know as well as any long-time editors what time-sinks page discussions can be, and avoiding those with an explanatory edit summary is allowable and often used. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Thanks for chiming in to the insanity on the article I am trying to save. I truly am trying to edit following the rules. avignonesi (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Avignones, surprised and appreciated. I think you've proven your case, so nice work. Depends on other editors and the closer. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:2115 films has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:2115 films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Randy, thanks for not opposing this case fix at least: Talk:Cow-hugging therapy. Dicklyon (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have, but knew you really wanted to moooooove the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello[edit]

I have seemed to offend you regarding the nomination of {{NFL lists}} for deletion. This obviously wasn't my intention and I hope you understand it was not meant personally. I have been in the same place as you regarding something being proposed for deletion that I enjoyed. I can assure you that in no way am I "celebrat[ing]" the deletion of the template, nor am I particularly happy that a fellow editor is so frustrated by the proposed deletion. I feel I have made my case in the nomination and plan to avoid commenting there again unless pinged/requested. Wish you the best of luck in your editing endeavors. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gonzo_fan2007. Thanks, we all win some and lose some, so can't get too emotionally involved with any article or item on Wikipedia. I do enjoy the navbox in question, a very good and useful easily accessed point of information. Overall, using the existence of footer navboxes for removing sidebar topics doesn't seem like a good idea, as there are hundreds (if not thousands, any way to find a count?) of sidebar boxes which duplicate footers in some form. Focusing on this one, using this reasoning, seems to be a shadow nomination via setting a precedent. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impressionism[edit]

Hi Randy, I hope you're having a good weekend. It seems to me that when looking through book sources, e.g. at [1] - there are lots of reputable books titling this in sentence case. Obviously fine for you to revert, but it does seem like yet another case where usage has significantly shifted, and MOS:CAPS would advise us to follow suit. Not one that we can test in an RM on this occasion though, since the base name Impressionism is capitalised either way... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Amakuru. Yes, when I saw your edit I was concerned that Impressionism would be lowercased without a "case" presented. As one of the major art movements of the last few hundred years I thought "yet another one to discuss on the talk pages of Wikipedia" (it seems more than the usual major casing decisions and discussions have flown around the backroom halls lately). Will look into the variations more, and thanks for coming by. I hope your weekend is too good to write home about! Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American English vs: British English[edit]

Hi Randy,
After seeing you placing the periods after the quote marks at the end of the sentences, I decided to do a little research on this, and my suspicions were correct. Americans are taught to put the quotation mark after the period at the end of a sentence. People in the British sphere of influence are taught to place the period after the quotation mark at the end of a sentence. Personally, my rule of thumb is: If it's an American article, use American punctuation. If it's from a country where British English predominates, then use British punctuation. Might you have any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Lighthumormonger: Our manual of style dictates the use of logical quotation regardless of English variant. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes but within that section it does not make it clear. In one instance it says that the quote can be before the last punctuation mark, but within the same section it says it can be after the punctuation mark. Please check out our MOS HERE. Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(another stalker) Logical quotation means sometimes putting the quotation mark before punctuation and sometimes after, based on rules. The MOS says always to follow logical punctuation. This isn't treated as an WP:ENGVAR issue. Newimpartial (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newimpartial, thanks for your good suggestion. For myself, the MOS:English idioms that I linked to above, seems to me to address the question of the best type of punctuation to use in various situations where different idioms are used, much more directly than the MOS:ENGVAR section does. I would certainly appreciate your insights as to which MOS section addresses this question the best.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, enwiki uses double quotation marks first, and single quotes inside double quotes; other punctuation around quotation marks is also governed by this detailed treatment. These sections supercede "idioms" or varieties of English. By contrast, MOS:TIES is concerned primarily with word choice and doesn't really address punctuation. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS:TIES go to the runner. My personal punctuation irk on Wikipedia is finding the name a TV episode, short story or something in quote marks, followed by a comma within the quote marks. As if the comma were part of the title. Bannable offense if I were an admin (if nommed I would not run, if elected I would not serve, to coin a phrase). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If nommed, I'd be right next to you, running for my life, getting out of there as fast as I can! We all get through this one way or another, but why make it harder on yourself than it has to be? Thanks for a little humor in a very serious conversation. Sometimes that does make all the difference, old chap! Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Them's fightin' words (although I don't know which ones)! Question per the discussion, is the ! placed correctly in the last sentence? I love the admins, almost all of them do great jobs of corralling the usually uncorrallable. But I'd be going around unbanning users, and banning those who use commas inside the wrong quote marks, and wouldn't last an hour before the desop crew gave it a go. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question that you brought up has caused me to go out into the world and to try to find "the answer." I've been a searcher for, "the answer" all of my life, the great question being, "does a punctuation mark belong in front of or behind a quotation mark at the end of a sentence?" I've always known that if only I could just answer that one question, I could live "happily ever after." These are the types of questions that our poor admins have to answer on an hourly basis, and I give them great credit for putting up with all of this, and I have no idea how they do it!?* 🤔 Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you find the answer? In fact, I wonder if there is someone, somewhere, perhaps even someone who has read the question here, who could answer the first question discussed above. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pulling my tongue out of my cheek, I found that in the non-wiki world, most Americans are taught to automatically end all of their sentences that end with a quote, with the period placed before the final quote mark. Most people who live in parts of the world where "British English" is preferred, are apparently taught to automatically end all of their sentences that have a quote at the end, with a period placed after the final quote mark.

Wikipedia, on the other hand has apparently taken the American APA MOS, which is technically the definitive set of rules for American English, but which is not taught much in American public schools, and which is not always strictly followed in American Higher Education, and has apparently tried to cram this set of rules into the Wikipedia MOS, but in the process condensing for example a half page in the APA MOS into two sentences, has made it a little bit difficult for some people to fully understand, including myself.

That, old chap, is "the answer," so now that I've found it, maybe I can go to find my reward upstairs, no? (Or maybe I should become an admin to fix it.... NOT.) I would much rather just occasionally grumble a little. Wikipedia still "works," and that will always be the bottom line. I will just continue to write in the same way most Americans do, and if some editor wants to Anglicize my writing, I will let him or her.

Perhaps I've learned the saying, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I choose what things I want to change, and this is not one of them. Lighthumormonger (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]