User talk:InfiniteNexus/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Should we reorder the RfC?

I'm a bit behind the times and don't trust my ability to ping you, so you get a talk page message. You mentioned that the support/oppose/discussion format you were drafting would've been far superior to what we've got going on. I was thinking the same, plus we should do something to keep people replying to question #2 and any & all questions to come thinking that's where to weigh in on the main issue. So what's stopping us from reorganizing the RfC going on now into a support/oppose/discussion format? It's a bit of work, but I could do it. --Kizor 17:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that, though it's going to take some time for us to sort all the comments into support/oppose/other. There's a discussion about splitting off to a separate page at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)#Move Vector RFC to subpage?. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes the S/O/D format is definitely preferable in terms of a future closer determining consensus and just wading through all this junk. Happy to help if needed. I don't think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A reorg can happen now even if a move is later determined to be the right call. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Checking my work now. Since you left a "support" and a "comment" at the same time, I didn't recognize they were from the same user, moved the second part into the "RfC discussion" subsection, and after noticing just now that they were, copied your signature from the second part into the first to give it proper attribution and am now letting you know and asking if this was appropriate or if you want the issue handled differently. --Kizor 22:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kizor: Thanks for taking care of that. I'm fine with splitting my comment into two. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

My oppose !vote was deleted during the reorganization. Please check carefully for other deletions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to go through the page history to see what exactly Kizor did, but it's taking me a while. I'm not sure what's going on with the comment placed before "Discussion". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, for reference, this is the version of the talk page before the reorganization. I'm going to check if Kizor missed anything. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through the entire discussion (everything above "Question #2"). There weren't any other deleted comments, but I did reorder a few and made minor formatting changes to a couple of them. Going to execute the split after checking in at the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Formatting of RfC responses

Hi! I noticed that you recently changed the formatting of something from beginning with #: to beginning with ::. As a heads up, this sort of edit will break the formatting by preventing the ordered list from counting all of the responses. Is there a particular reason that you chose to make this change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going through the entire discussion to see if Kizor missed anything (see the above section), so I didn't realize you had made those edits. Thanks for fixing it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of Avengers: Age of Ultron in December

You reverted my edit on December 2 at 6:34. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

The sentence in question says:

In the film, the Avengers fight Ultron, an artificial intelligence accidentally created by Tony Stark (Downey) and Bruce Banner (Ruffalo) with the goal of causing human extinction.

It seems to me that many readers wouldn't know which had the goal of causing human extinction, Ultron or the Avengers.

How about this?

In the film, the Avengers fight Ultron, an artificial intelligence accidentally created by Tony Stark (Downey) and Bruce Banner (Ruffalo). Ultron has the goal of causing human extinction.

Or this:

In the film, the Avengers fight Ultron, who is an artificial intelligence accidentally created by Tony Stark (Downey) and Bruce Banner (Ruffalo) with the goal of causing human extinction.

-RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: I don't think there's any ambiguity. There is no comma before with, so it is clear that with the goal of causing human extinction is part of the appositive phrase an artificial intelligence accidentally created by Tony Stark (Downey) and Bruce Banner (Ruffalo) with the goal of causing human extinction. Only if there is a comma before with would the sentence read In the film, the Avengers fight Ultron [...] with the goal of causing human extinction. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, technically. Grammatically, not having a comma makes the whole latter part of the sentence (after "Avengers fight Ultron") a dependent clause. However, I said "many readers wouldn't know which had the goal...". I think that most readers will be confused with the length of the clause and the fact that it's got compound and parenthesized objects (Tony and Bruce).

Because of this, I'm going to put in the second of my changes ("who is"). That's grammatically correct as well. If you wish to revert my change, be my guest and I'll never bother you again. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

​ I'm fine with that wording, but it sounds a little off. What if we replace the comma after "Ultron" with an em dash? Would that address your concern? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

​How about replacing the whole ", who is " with an em dash, like this "the Avengers fight Ultron—an artificial intelligence accidentally..."?

You can edit it to "the Avengers fight Ultron—who is an artificial intelligence accidentally..." or anything else you want. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Paramount Global

Thanks for reverting that move. I had considered reverting it myself, but held off. I don't blame the user who posted the request to RM/TR, as they are fairly new. However, I don't understand why it was moved, apparently without checking the articles' talk pages for previous move requests. As page mover, if someone had asked me to make a technical move, which does happened occasionally, that's the first thing I do. BilCat (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I just spoke with the user (admin!) who made the move and told them the same things you wrote above. Great minds think alike! I was very concerned when I saw it was an admin who made the move, so I figured I would need to talk to them one-on-one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking to them. I was considering doing that also. You'd think an admin would know better, but everyone makes mistakes or has lapses. BilCat (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, we're only human. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:King Kong (TV series)

Hello, InfiniteNexus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:King Kong (TV series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Time Variance Authority (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Time Variance Authority (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 § Time Variance Authority (Marvel Cinematic Universe) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Using title case for acronyms

Hey, I'm pretty sure I got this right on the downcasing of expanded acronyms of common-nouns. The MOS is tricky, so I'm always open to raising my game on it. My vibe is that Wikipedia is a low case place. Additionally, I just trimmed out the text that tells our reader that the term is an acronym. A nugget in the MOS chides us not to point out acronyms to our readers. Okay, trying to avoid drama and edit warring. Please research it and school me why these are proper instead of common-nouns. We all learn from each other. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 05:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@WikiWikiWayne: No, that's not correct. Language Model for Dialogue Applications is a proper noun, not a common noun. In other words, it is a proprietary, copyrighted brand name, not a generic term. In the examples listed at MOS:EXPABBR, digital scanning is a generic term (common noun), so it should be in lowercase, but British Broadcasting Corporation is a brand name (proper noun), so it should be in uppercase. You are correct that Wikipedia is a low case place when it comes to article and section titles, but we follow standard grammar conventions as well. That includes capitalizing proper nouns and not capitalizing common nouns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Hi, again. See: MOS:ACRO1STUSE for simplistic examples and rationale. For example, the WP:MOS expansion of MTU is maximum transmission unit, not Maximum Transmission Unit. It's common nouns. Please school me on why this common-noun acronym should be Title Cased. Also, please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Formation and usage for "It is not necessary to state that an acronym is an acronym. Our readers should not be browbeaten with the obvious." That is why I blanked the cruft, "stands for..." - Cheers! - {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 06:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is not a common noun, it is a proper noun. Please refer to the dictionary definition of "proper noun". Maximum transmission unit is a common noun. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Minor italics in captions

Hello. This is not a right or wrong issue. There have been acres of discussions about discrete italics within image captions and resulting in no consensus. I prefer it. Calling me wrong for doing it is not friendly. Reverting it is not friendly. I edit in good faith and to improve the encyclopedia. Please try not to make it personal. Thanks. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne, I recognize your edit was made in good faith, and I was not trying to "make it personal". I described your use of italics as "improper" because nowhere on MOS:ITALICS does it say italics can or should be used for this purpose. If you believe I am mistaken, please let me know. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)