User talk:Chris the speller/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

de-italicizing of Latin phrases

I am curious as to why you are de-italicizing phrases such as magna cum laude and summa cum laude, in apparent contradiction to Wikipedia:Text formatting § Foreign terms. Fabrickator (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Because they are not foreign phrases. If you keep reading the guideline, the fourth paragraph says "Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization. ... If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." These all appear in Merriam-Webster Online. Chris the speller ^yack 21:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect categories

Just letting you know that we place redirect categories such as {{R from misspelling}} below redirects to avoid breaking them. I have fixed the redirects you tagged, but just know this for the future. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you educated me. Chris the speller ^yack 00:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Episcopal Church (United States). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, please do not reduce to lowercase specific titles such as "Archbishop of Canterbury". Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: The MOS says a title is capitalized only "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:" Note especially "is not preceded by a modifier". I changed "current Archbishop", which is modified. Chris the speller ^yack 04:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Now that you have had time to reexamine the MoS, should you not go back to the articles you changed and restore the capitalization to the style used by WIkipedia? Chris the speller ^yack 20:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your input

Can you give your input about a hyphen at Talk:Magnetic-core memory? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Springettsbury twp pa

There was a photo on this page, the strickler farm on the history tab. This farm is not in springettsbury twp but it in ft egypt, va Sincerely, Chris strickler Cwstrick3 (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

National Hand Touch Football League

Thank you for editing on Huevelton, New York I went to school there it was good years for me as I started the National Hand Touch Football League there. Demons24 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Chris the speller!!
	Hi Chris the speller, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all you do--Tony the Marine (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)(UTC)

Wheaton Precious Metals Updates

Hi Chris,

I see that you are an active member of Wikipedia and have updated Franco Nevada's page recently. I am looking for someone to help me update the information on the Wheaton Precious Metals page, I unfortunately cannot as there is a conflict of interest. The information on the Wheaton page is very out of date, i've highlighted potential changes below:

The key information box on the right incorrectly has Wheaton listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, this should be removed and replaced with the London Stock Exchange (the company listed on 28th October 2020, link to the press release here: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/WPM/admission-to-trading-on-the-main-market-of-the-lse/14734411).

The article has the wrong President & CEO. Randy Smallwood is the President and CEO and Douglas Holtby is the Chairman of the Board, please see a link to the management team here: https://www.wheatonpm.com/Company/management-and-directors/default.aspx

The financial info is from 2013 in the grey box at the top of the article. As of 2020 half year results they now sit at:

Revenue US$247.954 mil (2020) Net income US$105.812 mil (2020) Total assets US$180.275 mil (2020) Total equity US$5.516 (2020)

Please see their half year 2020 results here for reference: https://money.tmx.com/en/quote/WPM/news/5644243550442243/Wheaton_Precious_Metals_Announces_Record_Revenue_and_Sales_Volumes_in_the_First_Half_of_2020

Would you be able to update this? I'm not sure what the Wikipedia guidelines are on this so please do let me know if this is not possible.

Best,

Annabel 05ademorgan (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for complying with Wikipedia's policy on paid contributions, and for your interest in keeping Wikipedia's content accurate. You should make this request on the article's talk page (Talk:Wheaton Precious Metals). My expertise is not in establishing what is a reliable source of information, but more in the area of spelling, grammar, punctuation, format and capitalization. Chris the speller ^yack 14:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:HYPHEN

From MOS:HYPHEN: "Compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively (adjectives before the nouns they qualify: a light-blue handbag, a 34-year-old woman) or substantively (as a noun: she is a 34-year-old) are usually not hyphenated when used predicatively (descriptive phrase separated from the noun: the handbag was light blue, the woman is 34 years old)." Emphasis added since that's the part you seem to be overlooking. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That part of the MoS is referring to a compound that follows the noun and is separated from it, not a compound that precedes the noun but has another modifier added to it. For other editors who might be observing, it would have been considerate to mention the article that's involved (Emily Kathryn Wyant). Instead of leaving it in its current, deficient state, why not go with "on a summer and part-time basis"? Chris the speller ^yack 20:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say "separated but only when it comes after and doesn't have another modifier between", it just says "separated". Also, your suggestion reads like "instead of leaving it correct as it was, why don't you let me have my way". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand what it means for a compound modifier to be used predicatively, and this is not such a case. Perhaps if you read other sources that explain compound modifiers, instead of dissecting the MoS down to individual words, you would feel better about this. Try dailywritingtips.com: "Since they appear before the noun, they are hyphenated. If they followed the noun, they would no longer be hyphenated." Chris the speller ^yack 23:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I resent your implication that I want you to "let me have my way". I'm not here to win, but to make Wikipedia the best it can be. I have offered a third way to handle the case. Chris the speller ^yack 01:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hello my old friend, I hope all is well with you and your loved ones. I wrote two articles which I would like for you to look over whenever you can. They are: List of historic properties in Clifton, Arizona and List of historic properties in Duncan, Arizona. I would really appreciate any corrections made by you. An advanced thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. I gave Clifton a treatment, will get to Duncan later. I caught the misspelling of "Billiard Hall" and would have been embarrassed if I had missed it, since my grandfather ran a billiard hall in Arizona in the 1910s/1920s. Chris the speller ^yack 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Chris the speller ^yack 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your persistent work on List of historic properties in Duncan, Arizona‎ and List of historic properties in Clifton, Arizona. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at HQ Bank, you may be blocked from editing. Fizz fam (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not disruptive to use lower case for job titles per MOS:JOBTITLES. And you could use a friendlier tone, and a section heading that makes more sense. Chris the speller ^yack 04:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It's Chief Executive Officer not chief executive officer

It is not ceo, it's CEO. If it's abbreviated as CEO, then it is spelled Chief Executive Officer. MediaJS (talk) (C) 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@MediaJS: Your argument is exactly contrary to Wikipedia's Manual of Style; see MOS:CAPSACRS: "Do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common-noun phrase, just because capitals are used in its abbreviation." And why would you think that if "chief financial officer" and "executive director" are specifically mentioned in the examples in MOS:JOBTITLES that "chief executive officer" would merit some kind of different treatment? The MoS is plain enough about this, and merriam-webster.com also shows it in lower case. Chris the speller ^yack 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I apologize for the revert I have done. Thank you for pointing that out though. MediaJS (talk) (C) 16:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your tireless work updating infoboxes of deceased biographies! Keep it up! Wyliepedia @ 07:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas L. Bissell Jr.

Hi Chris. Not sure if you are the original person who wrote the page for Nicholas L. Bissell Jr. I would like to request if you are, if you can protect this page. The page is being vandalized by people who are trolls from twitter. They just created their username JilleeLean

If you can't could you tell me how to hopefully request this. Cha20raca (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You should start at WP:HELP. Chris the speller ^yack 04:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

I wanted to reach out and say thank you for fixing my spelling mistakes on the Husky page which I have tried to edit. Somehow or another, I misspell words and italicize/capitalize wrong words, all which go undetected by myself for some reason. So thank you for your diligence! Johndvandevert (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Bob Crosby

I appreciate the "thank-you" for my change of "Occupation" to sentence case in the infobox. Unfortunately, that edit has been reverted. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I am not going to change it again. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Report

Hi, Chris the speller @User:ItsSkV08 continuously undoing edits in Salem Spartans Support staff section - Content Social media : Dhanesh , Reason given is promoting myself , even it is not myself , as many of times reported the user , You can check here for authenticity , you have to take any action to preventing from vandalism. Dhaneesh 🙃 Ram14:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I don't plan to get involved with this. You might try WP:HELPDESK. Chris the speller ^yack 13:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Dear friend Chris the speller Dhaneesh 🙃 Ram15:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization

Looking for a second opinion at Middle Temple; some AWB un-capitalization was reverted. It does look correct to me. See edit summary for more info. Thanks. MB 04:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@MB: See my edit. Also see MOS:GEOUNITS – "Exception ("City" used as shortened proper name for the City of London):" Chris the speller ^yack 04:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

How about Pedro II of Brazil, filled with "the Emperor. Those should all be lower, right? MB 14:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Not if it refers to a particular and obvious person (such as Pedro II). In MOS:JOBTITLES – "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" Chris the speller ^yack 18:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Retaining an English variety of spelling

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Hotan, you changed one or more words or styles from one national 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 a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. 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 Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 03:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Visioncurve: A very nice lecture, but it did not tell me anything I didn't already know. Before you pounce on any other editors regarding this kind of spelling change, investigate more thoroughly. You may find that the article has a template "Use Xxxxx English" that the other editor was following. I have also given this section a more meaningful heading. Chris the speller ^yack 04:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Relationship to Freeland Family

My Great Grandmother is Dorothy Marie Freeland. The story of Freeland Michigan has been past down each generation. My Great ,great ,great ,great grandparents had a tavern near the river were all the loggers would stop and find hospitality and lifted spirits thanks mammy (Elizabeth)and pappy (Garrett A.)Freeland.Now there is also a rumor that it wasn't just a tavern but a burlesque travern but that is unlikely due to my famillies long line of religious beliefs. I am very proud to come from the bloodline of Freeland's. Kappendenise (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this pertains to improving Wikipedia. Chris the speller ^yack 00:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"~" South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts "" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ~" South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts ". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29#~" South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts " until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Army command title: Port of Embarkation

You have "corrected" spellings of a title. The Army had commands that managed all traffic into and out of large ports where Army cargo and troops were handled. That command was entirely separate from whatever port existed and even such a port's geography. For example, the New York Port of Embarkation in WW II had sub-ports and facilities outside the New York/New Jersey area. Usage of "port" in that context is not some generic port facility city or even region. If you read the articles you will find an Army POE's reach extended from factory and military base loading areas (troop trains from the interior bases to the ports were under control of the POE Commander) even across a continent, through the port facilities that included major embarkation camps, massive warehouse facilities, piers, vessels and then out to the ports to which cargo or troops were destined. Every troop ship had its "troops" under effective command of the Port of Embarkation commanding officer — the "Transport Commander" — with their unit commanders, even generals, under that officer's authority while aboard. Every ship carrying a large Army cargo had a POE "Cargo Officer" aboard.

When dealing with a specific POE the capitalization is a title. Lower case is appropriate in general discussion but I think the ones I've reverted were linked to the specific Army command rather than generic. The distinction is important as current "editors" often appear to have little to no knowledge of what the things were. That is very evident in some linking of one of those POEs to today's general port. No, the Seattle Port of Embarkation (originally a sub-port of the San Francisco Port of Embarkation) is not the current port of Seattle. A scrub of the use in articles, where specific about the command (the San Francisco Port of Embarkation) or generic ("the Water Division of a port of embarkation"), is something useful. Coverage of the other ports of embarkation beyond those now covered is "back burner" and all will point to the original concept of the WW I Hoboken Port of Embarkation that by war's end became the New York Port of Embarkation and was the granddaddy and largest of all the WW II commands. Palmeira (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Palmeira: I didn't change "Hoboken Port of Embarkation" or anything like that. There us a difference in capitalization between "he returned to the battalion" (not capitalized even if the proper name of the battalion was stated earlier) and "he returned to the 9th Battalion"; in the second case "9th Battalion" is a proper name. This is made clear in MOS:MILTERMS. Please also read MOS:INSTITUTIONS and MOS:JOBTITLES. We don't capitalize "cargo officer" or "transport commander" as you did above, and we don't capitalize the expansion of an initialism such as "POE" just because caps are used in the initialism. Chris the speller ^yack 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

When a referring to a specific entity the capitalization would seem as appropriate as in any conventional English usage. "Transport Commander" is a specific title for an official, as much as President of the United States, when referring to the office of Transport Commander rather than a general reference in text. Palmeira (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't capitalize "pope" even though that is a specific title for an official. Please read MOS:JOBTITLES again: "The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it." Chris the speller ^yack 18:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Been off on something else so apologies. I have. Re "Transport Commander" which was an "office" in itself (on large transports a real office with a full support staff):

They are capitalized only in the following cases:

When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon

When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in

When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description

In an example this is how I'd handle it: On U.S. Army transports, whether owned or chartered, all troops and personnel are under the command of the Transport Commander who is the representative of the port of embarkation command under which the ship and troop movement is controlled. Transport commanders do not command the ship or ship's crews. So, generic port of embarkation but Seattle Port of Embarkation, generic transport commanders not capitalized, but the specific position is. Also with "Transport Commander, Col. John Doe, representing the Boston Port of Embarkation ordered . . ." Palmeira (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If you try to find absolutely any excuse to capitalize a job title, you will probably veer away from the intent of Wikipedia's MoS. It's probably best to lean the other way. The MoS pretty much recommends capitalizing only when the title screams out for it. "... politician who was Governor of New York ..." and "... spoke with Lieutenant Commander Smith ...", but "... replaced the company commander, Captain Miller, who ...". A formal title would be something like "King of Spain", but not "head janitor" or "troop commander". In your example, "Troop Commander" is preceded by a definite article ("the"), so it gets lower case anyway. Chris the speller ^yack 18:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo of Ardennes.

You show US troops on Saint Vith-Houffalize road in Belgium on "24 January 1945". That picture has been slightly cropped. The original photo has the handwritten date on the bottom right. It reads: 1944, 06, ???? (Illegible). But judging by the weather, probably December. Hope you can make use of this info. OkiPaul (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Addition for “ List of songs about the September 11 attacks”

Artist - Vault 51 Song - Mourning View Album - Kid Year - 2017 Description - Lyrics include “ Another day, sitting in 3rd grade, another repeat. When suddenly, three airplanes fly on the tv. Now 30 kids, stare at the screen with no understanding.”

I would greatly appreciate if this song could be added for I do not have the skill to do so myself. Thank you. 2001:56A:FD1A:1B00:9DA7:5699:E696:CC94 (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A good place to get help for something like this is at WP:HELPDESK or on the article's talk page. Chris the speller ^yack 15:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Howdy. We don't lower-case political offices or titles in infoboxes of bios. WP:JOBTITLES doesn't cover infoboxes. My suggestion would be to 'not' open up that can of worms 'again'. An RFC was closed months ago on that topic, with the decision being basically exempt the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This fly doesn't shoo away as easily as that. Chris the speller ^yack 04:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Directorate of National Coordination

Hello,

I just noticed that you edited every French phrase in the above article. I can only suppose because you thought the phrases foreign to a Lao national. However, French was the official language of Laos during the monarchy because of the plenitude of Lao dialects, as well as a lack of written form of same.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: I think you are looking at the wrong edit. I only fixed some capitalization and punctuation (no French text). Please take a closer look. Chris the speller ^yack 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies for pinging the wrong editor. Anyway, the above screed was informative, not accusatory.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Style fix

Hello, any thoughts on Special:Search/"most especially"? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I have no thoughts on that. I would have thoughts about "most specially", which should be changed to "especially" or "most especially". Chris the speller ^yack

Herzlichen Dank!

Hi, Chris, vielen Dank für deine Mühen an den Artikeln von Donald Martiny und Gabriele Evertz. Eine Frage: 1965-2015 - der Strich ist kein "Halbgeviertstrich" im Englischen, ja? Im Deutschen müssen wir ihn machen, ich mache ihn immer mit ALT 0150. (I hope it is okay to write in German, i read that you are fluent in the language). Kind regards and again: thanks! --Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:YEARRANGE says to use an en dash (ALT 150) between years. Many editors are not aware of this, and use the hyphen instead. I correct these using the AWB tool, mostly. Beim manuellen Bearbeitung verwende ich auch ALT 150. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 14:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank auch für die Korrektur bei Achim Zeman. I hope, i will do it better next time. Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Preskident

Not sure if you're aware, but your automated tool to fix the random capitalization of super-important business titles seems to also be changing the spelling of "president" to "preskident" on occasion. See here, here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuru (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for letting me know so I could fix the tool, and thanks also for fixing the three cases you found. Chris the speller ^yack 13:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mutual Life Building (Seattle), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saloon and Glazed tile.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I have disambiguated the links. Chris the speller ^yack 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful

In this diff [1] you added a proper name template to Anniversary, splitting the word into two bits, I think treating the "Ann" bit as a proper name? This was a really weird edit, which had no effect on the written article, but made it very complicated to read/understand in the editor. Please could you be a bit cautious when making rapid, semi-automated edits? Elemimele (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele: The parade apparently has the proper name "25th Anniversary of the Vietnam Wall Parade", that is, a parade to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Vietnam Wall. The first part of the name ("and the 25th Anniversary of the ...",) looks like a common noun, and an AWB rule that I am about to implement would try to change "Anniversary" to lower case. I added the template so that such a rule or an editor who did not carefully examine the sentence would not change part of the proper name to lower case. Any rule being run by a bot or an AWB user will not even see "Anniversary" because of the inserted vertical bar; this is the intended action of this template and its aliases, such as "Not a typo". I did not make a "rapid, semi-automated edit"in this case. I made a carefully considered edit to prevent an erroneous capitalization change by bots; this was made out of concern for what the readers will see, and that always trumps concerns about how hard it is for other editors to read, as they can always learn about Wikipedia markup. If that is not the actual proper name of the parade, then some other treatment of this sentence would be in order. Chris the speller ^yack 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele: You also re-inserted the hyphen in "Vice President" that does not belong there. Please be careful about reverting an entire edit when you only have an issue with part of it. Chris the speller ^yack 17:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, looking at that anniversary, because it's a parade published as such, it does merit capitals. I've self-reverted that change, also because of the hyphen; thank you for letting me know. I think an edit-summary explaining the original change might have helped me. But the distinction you've pointed out does open a bit of a can of worms. Do we need to distinguish when "Anniversary" is part of something's name? For example, the US Independence Day is written with capitals because it's really important, and that's its name. So where a country refers to its Independence Day as the Anniversary of Independence, presumably we need capitals. It's going to be quite time-consuming to work out case-by-case when capitals are wrong ("Independence Day celebrates the anniversary of independence") and when they might be correct ("Celebrations for the 25th Anniversary of Independence took place in 1998"), as the second option depends on how sources treat the anniversary. Maybe we should just not worry about the independence days of smaller countries unless someone gets upset about it, though I'd prefer to treat all peoples as equal! We're also now in a rather illogical situation at such articles as List_of_postage_stamps_of_India_(1971–1980) and List_of_people_on_coins_of_Canada where one anniversary in the middle is suddenly in lower-case, surrounded by Jubilees, Anniversaries of hockey series' births, deaths etc., all in upper-case. I sort-of feel there should be some obvious logic to what we do, but I'm not sure what that logic should be. Elemimele (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about "Anniversary of Independence"; I will exclude that from the AWB rule I have been testing. Chris the speller ^yack 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit required

Chris, I am looking for a copyeditor for List of United States Military Academy First Captains, which is at FLC. If you have the time, it would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Before I start, there is a discussion of capitalization style on its talk page, but the article still has lots of capitalization of "First Captain", and the article has not been lower-cased to "List of United States Military Academy first captains". What's up with that? Chris the speller ^yack 20:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

First Captain is always capitalised in the literature, and in the First Captain article. It doesn't make sense to me to be in lower case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I won't enjoy copyediting an article where a considerable number of editors don't agree with me about MOS:JOBTITLES and WP:SSF. Chris the speller ^yack 20:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That discussion was about military ranks, not the subject of the article itself. I don't think this had come up. I have no objection, and if you state that I have requested a copyedit, and state your reasons per MOS, it should be okay. My main concern is changing a title in the midst of a review, which is always tricky. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Done. Chris the speller ^yack 03:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

'The' before newspaper names

Hi. Re edits like this one, is there a specific place in the MOS that says to use an italicized capitalized The in front of a newspaper titles (that start with 'The') in running text? I looked in MOS:TITLE and a couple of other places but didn't find it. Some other style guides say the opposite, in particular Chicago has people writing "two reporters from the Washington Post were assigned" or "an editorial in the New York Times was harshly critical", etc. Just wondering. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Your answer is found in MOS:THETITLE. Forget other style guides; WP has its own MoS. Note that some periodicals have "The" as part of their name (The New York Times), but others do not ("The article appeared in the Los Angeles Times"). Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 04:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I missed that subsection. It doesn't explicitly address these kinds of running text cases, but I guess it's there by implication. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge of Main Street (Buffalo) into Buffalo, NY

Hi, I wanted to give you a heads up about an article you edited. The creator of Main Street (Buffalo), User:Piffner and agreed that the content would be better as a part of the article on Buffalo, NY, so they've moved it there and asked for a page deletion for Main Street (Buffalo). While this meets my sensibilities for speedy delete as an admin, I wanted to open a discussion on the article's talk page in case people who had recently edited the article would like to weigh in. --Zippy (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only fixed a newspaper's name; I have no problem with your plan. Chris the speller ^yack 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Alfred Kern, Novelist

Hi, I do not want to reverse your change without consulting you as you obviously work on wikipedia a lot. However, "Distinguished Visiting Professor" was my father's official title during his year at the Air Force Academy. That is the reason it was capitalized. Analogous examples would be "Associate Professor" or "Vice President" and the such. It is a very small issue. Perhaps if we add "of English" to the title, you will feel more comfortable about the initial caps. However, please, do as you think best. ... Ooops, sorry, just re-reaad the piece and saw that "of English" is already there! Kinda looks odd without the other initial caps, IMHO I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE TILDES ON MY TYPEWRITER -- WILL DOWNLOAD THEM FOR NEXT TIME MrsNick1962 (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note MOS:JOBTITLES, which says, among other things, "The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it." Chris the speller ^yack 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Why "fix" US News & World Report

Per Wikipedia:DONOTFIXIT, there would appear to be no reason to change "US News & World Report" to "U.S. News & World Report", yet it would appear that you have made several hundred, if not thousands, of such edits, including to dozens on my watchlist (such as this one), in which all that was changed was the addition of periods. Why would you edit contrary to this Wikipedia editing guideline for a change that accomplishes nothing for any reader of the encyclopedia? Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Short answer: consistency and correct punctuation of a proper name. "US News & World Report" is not the correct name of the publication. Also, the example you gave is not covered by DONOTFIXIT, which applies only to redirects. Even in the case of redirects, the guideline says "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected". I have seen some or all of these mixed on a page:

• U.S. News & World Report
• U.S News & World Report
• US News & World Report
• U. S. News & World Report
• U.S. News and World Report
• U.S. News & World Reports

along with combinations of these errors. Only the first of these six is correct. I'm gong to fix them, and I don't see how you have been harmed. Chris the speller ^yack 19:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• • None of the last five are "incorrect": They don't match the title of the article, but the redirect handles that. One great way to tell that nothing is being accomplished is that the end result is exactly the same. If these changes were being made in conjunction with actual useful changes, that might be different. Alansohn (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    • ??? (talk page stalker) The edit linked above clearly fixes the displayed name of the publication, which was wrong before the edit happened. There is no redirect involved here, only fixing of an incorrect name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Chris, you're a man after my own heart. My only gripe here is that I missed the ampersand error in an article I worked on and you caught it. ;-) --2603:6081:8040:E92C:9D4:9DF3:8587:45E7 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• • The whole community is harmed by extraneous edits. More edits makes it more difficult to trace through the revisions, uses more computer resources, and slows at least some things down (by dint of the extra revision). But if we're going to make a mass change like this, shouldn't we at least use a template? Then if we later decide to render the name of the publication differently, we just change the template. And if it's to be customized based on personal preference, then a template would allow for that as well. Fabrickator (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any templates for standardizing publication names; if one existed and there was consensus to use that instead of simply typing the properly spelled, capitalized and punctuated proper name, I would use it. My edits were to correct a proper name and were not "extraneous"; if you know an editor who is making extraneous edits, please go to their page and notify them, and then continue on your merry way. Chris the speller ^yack 14:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not intend to suggest that there's an appropriate template for this, I'm suggesting that we should plan for the possibility that there is no one true way to identify this publication that we will never want to change. Wikipedia has a lot of pages, there are currently about 9500 articles with references to U.S. News. We can get scalability from bots, but I would consider templates to be preferable. I really know very little about either of these, other than that we have a lot of bot applications as well as lots of templates. Now we could based this on ISSN, but IMO, that doesn't seem very good from a human factors perspective, e.g. {{issn_title|0041-5537}} would be pretty error-prone and otherwise user-unfriendly. You could just have a template {{usnwr_title}} which expands to the full title. I rally don't know how we use these technologies on Wikipedia, I just know it's silly to make 9500 manual changes and then have to make them again because they think there should be an extra space. Fabrickator (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The use of a template for a proper name has its pitfalls. Consider the Lynn Lowe article, which refers to a 1978 article by U.S. News & World Report. Suppose the publication name is produced by a template. Then suppose the publication changes its name to U.S. Online News & World Report and some enterprising WP editor updates the template o reflect the new name. Now the Lynn Lowe article shows the new name, but nobody in 1978 knew what "Online" meant, as the Internet was not yet invented, and the magazine only existed in print format. Also, some editors will continue to spell the name out in full, likely with mistakes, so the template will not have fixed the problem completely, while introducing problems that you have not anticipated. I suggest you wait until you see that bridge before deciding how to cross it. At any rate, there must be a better forum than my talk page for discussing the ups and downs of templates. Chris the speller ^yack 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're certainly right, we can have a fancier template, one that takes the issue date as an argument. Of course it's possible to come up with other scenarios. I am willing to let others demonstrate their vision in providing a good solution, as long as it's better than "edit every article because we now realize we should include markup that restricts where a line break can occur within the title". Fabrickator (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. My edits had nothing to do with line breaks. And again, there is no reason to use my talk page to discuss making or using templates. Chris the speller ^yack 04:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

State abbreviations

Hi Chris. You recently corrected PA to omit the two-letter abbreviation, rending it Pennsylvania in the article, Phi Psi (professional).

I understand this meets general guidance in the WP:MOS. However, for clarity and consistency, I'd like to allow for these. Project participants (Fraternity and Sorority Project) have been rather methodical in recent years, moving chapter lists and infoboxes to adopt consistent formats, this being one of them across several thousand pages. We've found that the two-letter abbreviations, with underlying WLs, get the job done, allow for a narrower table, and are thus more readable. In the infoboxes, where used in an address, they follow the standard US Postal abbreviations which casual researchers are looking for when addressing an envelope. (In body text we would assuredly spell out the full name of the state.) Yours was a good faith, but single change, impacting a category of articles that use this format widely. Wikipedia allows for deviation from the MOS where it improves clarity. I hope you see this as reasonable. Assuming so, I will revert. Generally, I applaud your editing efforts. Jax MN (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. I see you had left the two-letter abbreviations where used in the table. You had only edited the body text. My apologies. I have restored your edit. Jax MN (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Re Shelly Kappe, she didn't receive a master's of architectural history from SCI-ARC. SCI-Arc doesn't ever offer that degree, and it never did. She was one of the founders, along with her late husband Ray. She did not attend classes there; she was one of the original professors. Her SCI-Arc degree is honorary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serop2 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I never made any claim about any degree. Chris the speller ^yack 05:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Chris the speller!

Happy New Year!

Chris the speller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this a new formula?

{{SMS|U-67|sub=y}} I haven't seen it before. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I only discovered it recently, but it dates back to 2009 (wow)! This template is also called by the SMU template. Cheers! Chris the speller ^yack 15:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

I haven't had the pleasure of chatting with you, but I've seen you edits for years. I'm not sure if grammar is your expertise as well, but I've been watching a new and very busy editor, and I have concerns about most of their grammar-based changes. I've reverted a number of edits, but have been reverted back. I'm no expert on grammar, but I know a mistake when I see it. Would you have a moment to have a look? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at a few points of centention:

"gender-based violence"

a hyphen is needed in the compound modifier "gender-based"

"She is a strong believer of gender equality, and encourages the wider participation of both women and men in the conversations ..."

There is no hard-and-fast rule about the comma here. But if there is a natural pause as you read this sentence out loud, then a comma might be appropriate. This is a close call and could go either way. I wouldn't fight over it.

"The formal start of an English law of real property came after the Norman Invasion of 1066, when a common law was built throughout England."

The comma is proper before an independent clause. This would still make sense if split into two sentences: "The formal start of an English law of real property came after the Norman Invasion of 1066. That is when a common law was built throughout England."

But recasting the sentence might be better: "The formal start of an English law of real property came when a common law was built throughout England after the Norman Invasion of 1066."

Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 15:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Onboard

"Onboard" is a word, isn't it? Is there a reason to prefer "on board"? GA-RT-22 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Onboard" is a word; it's an adjective, which means it modifies a noun that follows it: "Since 1998, all Formula One cars have been fitted with at least three onboard cameras (usually more) ...", while "on board" is a prepositional phrase: "... the presence of foreign dignitaries on board created a security risk". "Onboard xxx" tells us what kind of thing xxx is, while "on board" tells us where it is: "While I was on board the cruiser, I asked when the captain planned to launch the onboard helicopter". The two are not interchangeable. Chris the speller ^yack 14:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

School Page Editor Reward

	School Page Editor Reward
	Thank you for contributing in school district pages! Ahnaf (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The delta rhythm boys

My uncle Floyd Henry Marmon was apart of them before he died 1933. He only wrote a song. But never performed because he died before he could perform and was replaced 2600:6C42:6A3F:65F7:BD0D:9106:EB26:DCB2 (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Comma after year

Hi Chris, another editor questioned to me your mass insertion of commas after years. I do see that this corresponds to WP:YEAR, however it's not that common a usage. Any comment? Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's very common usage. Wikipedia has decided on this format, and it looks right to me when it is done consistently. Go with the flow. Chris the speller ^yack 02:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Douglas Gretzler

Thanks for your edits on the above article. Given the fact there were two equally active and culpable participants in this drug-fueled murder spree, do you think the article should be renamed Douglas Gretzler and Willie Steelman? Kieronoldham (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on that matter; I was only working on commas, sorry. Chris the speller ^yack 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I know that, Chris. Just thought you may know whom/where to relay the request. Thanks again.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

DDC Schweiz AG

The page I've created recently was tagged up for speedy deletion, I've recently tried to draft up pages of tech companies in Switzerland and this is one of my first publishes could you please let me know if theres any way i could enhance this document and get them published as there's not much information online about these Swiss tech market companies which are there for quite a while. Sathish.thangarasa (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not my specialty, sorry. Chris the speller ^yack 14:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop, re: Tornadoes in the Americas?

I just posted this and was still making corrections. Would you please give me an opportunity to finish? Thank you. Dym75 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Then put [ [T e m p l a t e : I n u s e ] ] at the top while you are actively working on it. Chris the speller ^yack 02:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Help with titles (as in MBE and Dr).

You seem like someone who would know so hope you don't mind me asking for assistance here. Have looked through MOS etc. and I am still not clear. Should the highlighted titles (Dr. and MBE) be included in the text or not? I suspect we may have a bit of edit warring about to start over this in Beira's Place and thought I might forestall it. For what it's worth my reading of the MOS is that such titles shouldn't be included - although if I were to stray from my good faith view :) I'd say they weren't removed for MOS reasons.... but that isn't relevant to whether they should stay or go.

> Alongside Rowling, the current board members of the organisation are Rhona Hotchkiss (former governor of Cornton Vale prison), Johann Lamont, Susan Smith (director of For Women Scotland), and Dr. Margaret McCartney. The founding CEO of the organisation is Isabelle Kerr MBE, formerly manager of Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis Centre, and its deputy CEO is Sue Domminney. <

Thanks in anticipation.

LWB Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I commented in the article's talk page and have removed the titles. Chris the speller ^yack 13:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the input. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop changing "Department of Chemistry" to lower case

"Department of Chemistry" is a proper noun. Therefore, it is capitalized. Please stop changing it to lower case at Anna Krylov. See here for explanation of when names of university departments are proper nouns. Jt512 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jt512: No, "Department of Justice" is a proper name (not a proper noun, which term is generally used for a single word), because it is generally understood to mean "United States Department of Justice", a single, unique entity, but 'department of chemistry" could refer to any such department at many universities. MOS:INSTITUTIONS governs capitalization in Wikipedia, not anything that Lewis University publishes; many universities capitalize all sorts of things that Wikipedia does not. I googled site:washingtonpost.com "department of chemistry" and the first item found had "and chair of the department of chemistry at Princeton, said ...". So it is not "consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources", as our MOS requires. I don't change "MIT Department of Physics"; that is a proper name, though I would change "MIT's Department of Physics" to lower case. Chris the speller ^yack 14:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of faculty titles

Hi, I wonder if you'd mind explaining why I've seen you change several titles of faculty members from uppercase to lowercase. For example, "Y eventually became Professor of Biology and Chemistry". To me, this is a different sentence than "Y eventually became a professor of biology and chemistry." The first denotes a title awarded the professor by their university. The second is descriptive and refers to the general set of work activities carrried out by Y in the course of their duties - all because of that "a". This is how it seems to me but I'm happy to be corrected, thank you for your time. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally capitalizes only the first word in a sentence and proper names. For job titles, see MOS:JOBTITLES. We don't capitalize 'king', 'pope' or 'executive director', whether or not a government, church or corporation does so. We don't capitalize 'professor', 'biology' or 'chemistry', whether or not a university does do. These are common nouns. A preceding definite or indefinite article would have an effect on capitalization only when a formal title is concerned: "Ecgberht was King of Wessex until 839" vs. "Ecgberht was a king of Wessex who died in 839". In the former case, "King of Wessex" is an unmodified formal title. But "professor of biology" is not a formal title, even if a very prestigious university hands it out; lots of universities have professors of biology. Chris the speller ^yack 21:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I did read that, but still, respectfully I disagree. In the US, this is absolutely a formal title. Have a look here, for example. https://chemistry.harvard.edu/people/faculty-lecturers/faculty Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't lose sight of WP:SSF, which says "The faulty reasoning behind the fallacy of specialized style is this: because the specialized literature on some topic is (usually) the most reliable source of detailed facts about the specialty, such as we might cite in a topical article, it must also be the most reliable source for deciding how Wikipedia should title or style articles about the topic and things within its scope." In other words, Harvard may hand out job titles to a lot of smart people, but they don't get to tell WP how to capitalize them. Many universities are swept away in self-aggrandizement and ludicrously complex job titles. WP and The Washington Post aren't amused by that. In Google, try searching this: site:washingtonpost.com "Professor of Chemistry" and notice that they don't capitalize these job titles. But, as Giraffedata points out below, there are endowed professorships that carry the donor's name, and I don't mess with them. Chris the speller ^yack 00:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think all job titles are formal titles, but MOS:JOBTITLES talks about formal titles of specific entities, and there are lots of Professors of Chemistry, even in a single institution. An example of a formal title of a specific entity would be (from your reference), "Erving Professor of Chemistry". My take on the morass of Wikipedia job title capitalization rules is that while job titles qua titles are necessarily proper names and thus capitalized, we'd rather have job descriptions than job titles in articles unless there's something especially interesting about the title. A Wikipedia reader is much more interested that Y was a professor of chemistry than that he was Professor Of Chemistry. As a proper name, the latter doesn't even necessarily tell you what his job was; the university is free to confer the title to persons who are not professors of chemistry in the usual English sense. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t wish to argue but it still feels wrong to me. It’s not just Harvard; it’s common usage among all colleges and universities, and has been for at least a century. It took me all of two seconds to find that particular example, and it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with modern puffery.

I still believe that there is a significant grammatical difference between “Smith was a professor of chemistry at MIT ” and “Smith was Professor of Chemistry at MIT.” The reason that the difference is important is that there are lots of professors of chemistry at MIT but some are part time adjuncts, some are full time instructors who dont do research, some are Assistant Professors, some are Associate Professors…and these titles are granted by the institution and approved by their trustees. The first sentence says that Smith was employed there as some kind of educator; the second is much more specific and carries more useful and specific information - useful in an encyclopedia. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers, dictionaries and encyclopedias do not capitalize, but universities do, and that doesn't smell like puffery to you? If sycophancy is an important attribute of WP editors, them I guess I'll never be a good one. I doubt that most readers perceive or care about some possible difference between "became Professor" and "became a professor", but if such a difference is noticed by some, the change in case is not what tips them off. The article you reverted had "rank of professor". How is that made any clearer by capitalizing? I think the feeling of most WP editors is that an article should not become a sea of useless capitalization. I would like to get on with the cleanup. Chris the speller ^yack 03:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

As you wish. Happy editing, then. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Chris the speller!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry, I think that was a misclick I thought I said not to do. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I guessed that was the case. We're cool. Chris the speller ^yack 18:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Your profile bio page made me smile!

Thanks!

AsatruX (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Mortimer's great grand daughter

Mortimer's great grand daughter inherited Mortimer's 5 acres with original cabin about 9 years ago. On the property are original papers, files etc of Mortimer's. All from Communists Party, thanking him and officially recognizing Mortimer with gifts of Communist Party medals of service and letters of commendation. This property is in Mariposa County, secluded in the hills, where he hid from the U.S. Federal Government when needed. Mortimer's relative remains active in union politics. Maverick Mallard (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

July of 1917

Out of curiosity, what's wrong with 'In July of 1917' (as opposed to 'In July 1917')? Do a search on any such phrase and you'll get zillions of hits, including from e.g. the NYT. Adding 'of' is stylistic, not ungrammatical. Or is I wrong? GHStPaulMN (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

U is not wrong. Yes, it's stylistic, not ungrammatical. "In July 1917" is WP's style. MOS:BADDATE has: "July of 2001" and "Do not use these formats." Chris the speller ^yack 21:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Dog Pound (film) / "Murder of Taylor Zanco and the arrest and conviction of Taylor Poulin"

Hello there, I am not well versed in Wikipedia editing, so looking to others for help here. It seems page section Dog Pound (film)#Murder of Taylor Zanco and the arrest and conviction of Taylor Poulin should be its own page? I notice you only made a minor edit, but as the user who added the section seems to have been blocked and my knowledge of Wikipedia editing is non existant, I am here bothering you :) Can you help? 86.42.213.54 (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You could bring the issue up on Wikipedia:Helpdesk if you don't feel able to do it yourself. But why not try it? Copy the section, edit the new page and past the text, then delete the section from the film's article. If you do anything wrong, another editor will come along and fix it. As it is, it's a mess. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 03:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

How dare you pass responsibility to me! Only I do that.

I will give it a go, thanks! 86.42.213.54 (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Chris the speller!

Happy New Year!

Chris the speller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Leigh Corfman

Please add the names of Roy Moore's accusers. We aren't just a bunch of women! Use our names.#metoo Corf2301! (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If you haven't done so, go read WP:VOLUNTARY. Chris the speller ^yack 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Nice grammar catches on your part! Wikipedia is a better place with you in it! Here’s to you. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edits to Tanzila Khan

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tanzila Khan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 153.181.48.17 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP headings are in sentence case: per MOS:AT, "follow sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects)". Chris the speller ^yack 05:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A better pointer would have been MOS:HEADINGS, which should follow the same guidance. Chris the speller ^yack 05:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your fraction changes

This is a very unusual interpretation of MOS:FRAC you are using, and you seem to be making this change en masse. If you won't revert yourself, please at least stop and get a consensus for this change first. Fractions spelled out as fractions in prose in a non-mathematical context is unusual. I'd be happy to start a discussion somewhere if desired (probably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ?). SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Clarification_on_mixed_numbers. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You are suggesting that I revert myself for following the MoS, an interesting concept. I am not changing spelled-out fractions to figures; I have been changing mixed numbers to figures as stated in the MoS: "Mixed numbers are usually given in figures". Don't feel bad; you are the second editor I have run across today who does not have a good handle on the difference between a fraction and a mixed number. The more of these mixed numbers I fix, the more cases I find of completely wrong formats, such as "3 and a half", "three-and-a-half", "three and half", "3½" (using deprecated precomposed fractions), and often a variety of these in one article; I have brought consistency to these. You are suggesting that I get a consensus, when the MoS was already set by reaching a consensus, so I don't desire that you start a discussion. You should find something to improve in Wikipedia, and let me continue. Chris the speller ^yack 04:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think your changes are good on the merits, you should explain why on the talk page discussion I opened. If there truly ends up being a consensus behind it, fine, but please stop until that is established.

Surely you know that editors can cite the MOS while being wrong about it. I believe you've misunderstood the guidance on mixed numbers. It doesn't say to mandate using the frac template everywhere, it's talking about a very, very specific case that you're applying too broadly. SnowFire (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not '"fixing" a non-existent problem'; if you looked at a few of my changes (not just one), you would see that I am usually fixing really messed-up mixed numbers, as I mentioned on my talk page. I don't plan to stop fixing them. Chris the speller ^yack 04:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Procedurally, that is the wrong answer. Mass changes without community buy-in have ended up at ANI before. Like I said, if you can show you actually have consensus behind this, then fine, but if you don't have consensus, then you need to stop, or else the next step is ANI (which is silly for such a minor quibble). Please read WP:WILDFLOWERS - if people are telling you very directly that your "fix" is not actually a "fix" and there is no problem, believe them.

Anyway, if you're really so confident that your changes have consensus, it's no problem to wait a little bit to confirm that is actually true, right? SnowFire (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we share the same name!😎

Hey there, fellow Chris! We should totally start a club... the Chris Fan Club! Two Chrises are better than one, right? Chris denny 4840 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: "unencyclopedic details" edits.

I'm not sure that I agree that changing a time frame relating to the number of days or weeks from a subject's birthday to a less precise year of age is really removing an "unencyclopedic detail". It seems to me that is just making the time frame more vague. The fact that such references commonly occur in reporting suggests that it is a detail likely to be of interest to readers. BD2412 T 22:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed at WT:MOSBIO#Unimportant age details at time of death. Please take your concerns there. Chris the speller ^yack 23:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction, I have weighed in there. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William J. Spaulding Sr.

The article William J. Spaulding Sr. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This biography is not notable as there are no pertinent results for "William (J.) Spaulding (Sr.)" and "Lets all Skidaddle to Seattle" even at Newspaper.com.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

OK by me. Chris the speller ^yack 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your fraction changes

This is a very unusual interpretation of MOS:FRAC you are using, and you seem to be making this change en masse. If you won't revert yourself, please at least stop and get a consensus for this change first. Fractions spelled out as fractions in prose in a non-mathematical context is unusual. I'd be happy to start a discussion somewhere if desired (probably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ?). SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Clarification_on_mixed_numbers. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You are suggesting that I revert myself for following the MoS, an interesting concept. I am not changing spelled-out fractions to figures; I have been changing mixed numbers to figures as stated in the MoS: "Mixed numbers are usually given in figures". Don't feel bad; you are the second editor I have run across today who does not have a good handle on the difference between a fraction and a mixed number. The more of these mixed numbers I fix, the more cases I find of completely wrong formats, such as "3 and a half", "three-and-a-half", "three and half", "3½" (using deprecated precomposed fractions), and often a variety of these in one article; I have brought consistency to these. You are suggesting that I get a consensus, when the MoS was already set by reaching a consensus, so I don't desire that you start a discussion. You should find something to improve in Wikipedia, and let me continue. Chris the speller ^yack 04:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think your changes are good on the merits, you should explain why on the talk page discussion I opened. If there truly ends up being a consensus behind it, fine, but please stop until that is established.

Surely you know that editors can cite the MOS while being wrong about it. I believe you've misunderstood the guidance on mixed numbers. It doesn't say to mandate using the frac template everywhere, it's talking about a very, very specific case that you're applying too broadly. SnowFire (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not '"fixing" a non-existent problem'; if you looked at a few of my changes (not just one), you would see that I am usually fixing really messed-up mixed numbers, as I mentioned on my talk page. I don't plan to stop fixing them. Chris the speller ^yack 04:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Procedurally, that is the wrong answer. Mass changes without community buy-in have ended up at ANI before. Like I said, if you can show you actually have consensus behind this, then fine, but if you don't have consensus, then you need to stop, or else the next step is ANI (which is silly for such a minor quibble). Please read WP:WILDFLOWERS - if people are telling you very directly that your "fix" is not actually a "fix" and there is no problem, believe them.

Anyway, if you're really so confident that your changes have consensus, it's no problem to wait a little bit to confirm that is actually true, right? SnowFire (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we share the same name!😎

Hey there, fellow Chris! We should totally start a club... the Chris Fan Club! Two Chrises are better than one, right? Chris denny 4840 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: "unencyclopedic details" edits.

I'm not sure that I agree that changing a time frame relating to the number of days or weeks from a subject's birthday to a less precise year of age is really removing an "unencyclopedic detail". It seems to me that is just making the time frame more vague. The fact that such references commonly occur in reporting suggests that it is a detail likely to be of interest to readers. BD2412 T 22:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed at WT:MOSBIO#Unimportant age details at time of death. Please take your concerns there. Chris the speller ^yack 23:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction, I have weighed in there. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William J. Spaulding Sr.

The article William J. Spaulding Sr. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This biography is not notable as there are no pertinent results for "William (J.) Spaulding (Sr.)" and "Lets all Skidaddle to Seattle" even at Newspaper.com.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

OK by me. Chris the speller ^yack 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Assistance

Can you help edit. My page? Peaq1 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edits to Styphelia prostrata‎

Hello Chris, and thank you for your work. You have correctly fixed many spelling errors on pages I've written about plants. But on this occasion, you are not correct.

First, softly-hairy. Your change to "softly hairy ascending or erect branches" implies that the branches are soft. It is the hairs (on the branches) that are soft. "Softly-hairy" is used by plant taxonomists to describe plant hairs.

Secondly, your reference to MOS:SMALLFONT is not applicable in this situation. The critical words/phrases are "within page elements that already use a smaller font ", "most" and "plain text". You will also notice that the authors of S. prostrata ((R.Br.) Spreng.) are small. (Its done automatically in the taxobox, editors of plant taxoboxes do not need to "small" the authors). The authors of synonyms must be "smalled" - because it is not done automatically. I think it it will be clear to you, that having R.Br. in large font is incorrect. I'd refer you to Featured Articles like Banksia serrata, Banksia ericifolia, Acacia pycnantha, Lambertia formosa and many others, that the authors of synonyms are "smalled".

Happy to discuss this here, or on my Talk Page. Gderrin (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In MOS:SCIENTIFIC it says "In the article body, wrap the authority information in {{small}} or <small>...</small>." But the infobox is not part of the article body, and MOS:SMALLFONT is quite clear that a smaller font should never be used in an infobox. There seems to be a conflict between the actual usage in featured articles and one or the other section of the MoS. You might want to look into squaring the accepted usage with MOS:SMALLFONT, and maybe squaring the two sections of the MOS with each other, or cllarifying them. Meanwhile, the use of "softly-hairy" is quite opposed to MOS:HYPHEN, no matter what plant taxonomists commonly use: see also WP:SSF; WP editors determine punctuation style within WP, not plant specialists. Cheers! Chris the speller ^yack 04:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Chris, but you have avoided anwering my points. "Softly hairy ascending or erect branches" implies that the branches are soft. It is the hairs (on the branches) that are soft. "Softly hairy ascending or erect branches" is grammatically incorrect as is "softly hairy, ascending or erect branches". Softly-hairy is a compound modifier. I have edited the article to avoid confusion.

The synonym Astroloma prostratum R.Br. is incorrect, when the binomnial name is Styphelia prostrata (R.Br.) Spreng. however you interpret MOS:SMALLFONT. Would you be prepared to remove smalled authors in any featured plant article as you have done at Styphelia prostrata? Gderrin (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"Softly hairy ascending or erect branches" does not imply the branches are soft. I didn't read it that way, and no one applying rules of English grammar would either. "Softly" is an adverb modifying "hairy", so it means the ascending erect branches are hairy in a soft way. That's kind of an awkward way to say the hairs are soft, but if that is common in plant taxonomists' vernacular (and there's no practical way to say it in general English), it works for me. Not all compound modifiers are hyphenated. If Chris had taken the time to be more specific than just to say MOS:HYPHEN doesn't allow "softly-hairy", I'm sure he would have directed you to the sentence therein that starts, "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb". Basically, because "softly" couldn't possibly modify anything but "hairy", there's no case for hyphenation. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The formatting of an automatic taxobox is explicitly stated in the WP:WikiProject Plants/Automated taxobox system. (See here.[2]) Gderrin (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Is a taxobox a special case of an infobox, or is it something different? If it's different, and there is consensus to use a smaller font for authority information, then that exception should be noted in MOS:SMALLFONT. if a taxobox is an infobox, then MOS:SMALLFONT is in direct opposition to the use of small fonts, so something needs to be worked out. Also, MOS:SCIENTIFIC needs work, as it states "(This need not be done in a taxobox, which handles this automatically.)", and that is apparently not true. This mess should be cleaned up, or I won't be the last editor to step in it. For now, I will refrain from removing small markup from "synonyms" parameters. Chris the speller ^yack 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Chris the speller, please use your browser's Developer Tools / Inspector feature to look at font sizes. You should see that small text inside most taxobox fields results in 85% font size, which is acceptable per MOS. Taxboxes look like infoboxes in form, but they do not produce smaller text by default. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Assistance Needed

Could you possibly proofread the article regarding Max Baker-Hytch? Your help would be appreciated. --153.170.47.139 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done - it was pretty clean. Chris the speller ^yack 18:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you were one of the contributors on the article page, so, you are notified on

Hermann Ehrhardt

I don't agree with your intermpretation of the MOS here. In context, Brigade is a proper name, just abbreviated to avoid redundancy. But since my interest is accuracy & completeness of content, I'm not going to get too excited about it one way or the other. GHStPaulMN (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to interpret MOS:MILTERMS; it speaks clearly. It says that "Formal names of military units" are proper names and therefore capitalized. "Marinebrigade Ehrhardt" is a formal name; "the brigade" is not. Chris the speller ^yack 13:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hyphens?

I know that you are good about punctuation. What hyphens should Small form-factor PC have? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is tricky, because "form factor" is a noun and takes no hyphen. It would be fine to say "I want a PC with a small form factor", or "I want an SFF PC". But if it is expanded to "a small form factor PC", "small form factor" is a compound modifier, so that would indicate that a hyphen should be used between "small" and "form factor". No hyphen after form, because multi-word nouns don't take hyphens, as in "a pre-World War II movie". So "a small-form factor PC" could be considered properly hyphenated, but it does not lead to smooth reading. Maybe this is why newspapers and industry publications generally do not use any hyphens in "a small form factor PC", and trying to stuff hyphens in there will probably lead to unhappiness. The current page name would be better with two hyphens and even better with none. As it is, it looks like it is about a form-factor PC (whatever the heck that is) that is small. The lede defines SFF, and it might be a good idea to use "SFF PC" exclusively in the rest of the article. Chris the speller ^yack 03:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure about "a pre-World War II movie"? I thought the rule was to use hyphens throughout a compound modifier, as opposed to between the adjective and noun, because lots of compound modifiers don't even have an adjective and a noun (ease-of-reading considerations, slowly-but-surely strategy, six-hectare-limit rule). The practicality of hyphenating the whole thing is obvious: that way it doesn't read like a movie about the second war over the pre-World. Or a factor relating to small forms. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very sure. Search with DuckDuckGo (which pays attention to hyphens) for "pre-world-war-ii movie" and then "pre-world war ii movie" and see what comes up. None of your examples involve multi-word nouns. I can't think of any unhyphenated multi-word nouns that pick up a hyphen when an adjective is added in making a compound modifier. I admit that my example of "a pre-World War II movie" was not entirely appropriate, as "World War II" is a proper name, and you really can't jam hyphens into it. Back to the original question – "What hyphens should Small form-factor PC have?" – there is no slam-dunk right answer, and the closest I can come is no hyphens at all, as used in most sources I could find. Apparently, AI has not yet caught up with me; I asked Copilot (at bing.com/chat) about this case of hyphenation, and it said that "I bought a small-form-factor PC" was correctly hyphenated, and then said that "I bought a small form-factor PC" was correctly hyphenated! When I asked about the example with no hyphens, it preferred two hyphens. Chris the speller ^yack 01:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Belgian government formation

Hello Chris the speller, since you edited this recently, I was wondering how Arizonacoalitie should be spelled in English: "Arizona coalition" or Arizonacoalition as it is in the text now. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think most English-speaking folks would prefer "Arizona coalition". By the way, I fixed a typo in the article in an interlanguage link. Chris the speller ^yack 04:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much Chris :-) Lotje (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Chris the speller :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Newly created

Hello! I noticed that you recently changed some instances of "newly-created" to "newly created". Would you mind explaining why it doesn't use a hyphen? Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:HYPHEN: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". Wikipedia is not alone; see Hypercorrections: Are you making these 6 common mistakes? in the section "Hyphenating "-ly" adverbs". Chris the speller ^yack 16:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with that article. If you take out a word and the sentence no longer makes sense, then I think it should have a hyphen. You don't say "a[n] owned home". wholly and owned need to be together as a compound adjective. Plenty of style guides agree:

https://www.grammar.cl/english/compound-adjectives.htm However, if Wikipedia prefers no hyphen, I guess I give in. Wainuiomartian (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I searched nytimes.com and found "Nearly everyone wants a kitchen that has a brightly lit but glare-free work area". Your example web site has a top-level domain given out by Chile, probably not the best place for working out fine points on English usage. Wikipedia is not an outlier in using this style for compound modifiers; this is very mainstream. Chris the speller ^yack 01:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop changing Assembly to assembly

I see that you are changing capital-A Assembly to assembly using AWB, for example, here. The problem is that Assembly was supposed to be capitalized there because it's a proper noun. Please be careful with AWB. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which governs such cases. "New York State Assembly" is a proper name, but "the assembly" is generic. Wikipedia says these do not take capitals. Chris the speller ^yack 04:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

On second look, I think MOS:INSTITUTIONS could be improved. At merriam-webster.com, it has "assembly (2) capitalized  : a legislative body". Also, it is capitalized by newspapers. Chris the speller ^yack 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INSTITUTIONS says "[g]eneric words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, church, high school) do not take capitals". I think Assembly is more similar to House of Representatives or the House, not a university or church. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Visiting Professor" or "visiting professor"

Hello, I notice that on the Wikipedia page Quentin Skinner you have gone through the "Visiting Professor"s and replaced them with "visiting professors". I can see why you might have done this. But I don't think it's right. Being a professor is a job title or honorific, not a qualification like a PhD. So, if you are a professor you are a professor of something or in some specific context, and when the professorship is being discussed as a specific job title, it is a proper noun, e.g. "Professor of Modern History at Oxford". At Leuven, Northwestern etc. Quentin Skinner's title was "Visiting Professor".

See for example the following advertisements from the LSE, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and the Leverhulme Trust. To quote the first link from the LSE, e.g. "The School may confer the title of Visiting Professor or Visiting Professor in Practice for a defined but renewable period on persons of appropriate distinction whose connections with the School are appropriate to the visiting title." So, I really think that it ought to be Visiting Professor for the same reason that I would raise an eyebrow at someone saying that LBJ was a "former vice president of the USA". However, I see from your profile that you're an editor of incredible experience, and so I wanted to ask you in case I was mistaken!

Re the MOS, I was under the impression that capitalisation occurred with professional titles "[w]hen a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description". One of the examples it gives is "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016." I thought that, in the Quentin Skinner article, "He has been Visiting Fellow at the Research School of Social Science at the Australian National University (1970, 1994, 2006); Visiting Professor" and so on was a clear application of this principle. But I may be wrong!

All best, Gulielmus (one of the happy contributors to the page in question). Gulielmus Rosseus (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)<

There is no comparison between "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016" and "Clement G. Hodges became visiting professor of history in 2016". Any number of universities can have visiting professors, and any one university can have more than one, for all I know, but only one person can be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. If "of the United Kingdom" gets dropped, then the capitals get dropped, so "Theresa May became prime minister in 2016" is correct. The MoS mentions "a formal title for a specific entity", so I do not change to lower case in "the James Barr Ames Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School"; that's specific. Raise your eyebrow all you want, but in Wikipedia, "former vice president of the United States" is as it should be, in lower case. Quotes from the LSE carry no weight about capitalization in Wikipedia; see WP:SSF, which says "The specialized-style fallacy (SSF) is a set of flawed arguments that are used in Wikipedia style and titling discussions. The faulty reasoning behind the fallacy of specialized style is this: because the specialized literature on a topic is (usually) the most reliable source of detailed facts about the specialty, such as we might cite in a topical article, it must also be the most reliable source for deciding how Wikipedia should title or style articles about the topic and things within its scope." If you consult a good dictionary, you will see that "professor" and 'visiting professor" are common nouns. Chris the speller ^yack 00:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning for me. However, I must also candidly tell you that your response is the only occasion (and I have perhaps just been too lucky till now) that I have felt talked down to by a fellow editor and treated without the appropriate respect that editors owe each other. Perhaps you are too used to these questions being cynical exercises in pedantry by ill meaning people. But I honestly wanted to better myself as editor of a page I have in recent years taken much care to improve. I was not precious about the particular set of words you changed (I did not even write them), made no attempt to undo the change, and instead explained that I was sincerely sure you knew better and asked for help.

It's all well and good to tell me that only one person can be PM of the UK, with an open mind I can interpret that as you just giving me an example of the rule rather than patronising me. Likewise, 'raise your eyebrow all you want', though falling below my own standard of professional courtesy for friendly enquiries to strangers working on the same project, may well just be jovial banter. But to actually cite a page on a species of faulty reasoning that I have not anywhere used, and to actually advise me to look at it, is really quite something. I was not citing the LSE or any other source for their authority, I was simply citing them as examples of uses of the term in ordinary English. It would have made no difference to me whether or not the example came from a NY Times article, or a book, or a cartoon, so long as the example was English. It won't surprise you that the easiest places to find the term "visiting professor", when I googled it, were academic websites. I do not, as it happens, consider advertisements on the LSE website as an authority on what the LSE thinks good style is, let alone what Wikipedia should consider good style! The website is not what I would consider specialized literature, it is not (I wouldn't think) written by specialists or even really written for a specialist audience. I can just about see why, if I adopt a very cynical posture, that you would think I was somehow trying to dazzle you into submission by invoking weighty authorities. I was not.

The consequence of this is an inevitable temptation to take what you have said far less seriously. I have resisted that, and instead consulting with greater care and diligence the MOS, and indeed further Wikipedia articles (e.g. on the US vice presidency), and found that you are correct. So I must still thank you for helping me to navigate the required style.

All the very best. Gulielmus. Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You should not be feel insulted or offended. I intended this as an explanation for you and also for the many dozens of editors who watch my talk page, and especially for future editors who will (not 'might') question my capitalization changes in the future – I hope I can just refer to this discussion instead of reciting the whole thing again. It was meant for the least experienced editors as well as editors, such as yourself, who have extensive experience in Wikipedia but perhaps somewhat less in all the nuances of WP's style of capitalization. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)