User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 9
- User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive001
- User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive002
- User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive003
Puns in Binomial Nomenclature
The way you have "use of puns" now (although ruinous of the 2nd paragraph) is grammatically correct—it would seem that how scientists come up with species names is a topic for an entire paragraph, within which use of puns is certainly appropriate. If it needs to be linked to latinization, that could be moved down as well. But I'm curious; wherever did you get this idea in the first place? Not that it has never happened, but it is so rare as to stretch anyone's imagination to look for an example (I assume you do not have one). It is about as minor a point as I could imagine to put in that article, although certainly would add some interest if we could give an example or two. It is certainly open to challange by anyone as something you made up, so an example would help prevent that. - Marshman 01:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) Ooops, I missed your note about the External link, I will check it out. Think about putting together a 2nd paragraph (as I had started) covering puns and other souyrces of names; maybe with "all latinized" in it - Marshman 01:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) pretty cool site. Shoulda looked there first! Lots of examples - Marshman 02:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wibble, West Midlands
X, West Midlands (ie. disambiguation by ceremonial county) is the standard form used for articles in the UK. There's no agreed policy on it, unfortunately, but it is what has been and is being used, so when I see something at a different location, I move it. BTW, thanks for fixing spellings! Warofdreams 13:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Current Events
Thanks! much better wording of today's Current events ....and without loss of information! 209.135.35.83 20 Jul 2004
FHM
No, I commented on Template:CFD:FHM110sexiest. -SV. In case you missed it:
- Myself, Im inclined to think that MK, you must be on the FHM payroll, or else have no clue about what NPOV means. Perhaps the third option is more realistic: You spent a lot of time populating that list, innocent of the problems that it would raise, and like the rest of us, dont like to see your hard work get tossed. I sympathise; but back to the issue; Wikipedias prime directive is NPOV (followed by m:civility, and m:wikilove) and this includes devising a category scheme for POV based articles about matters of taste. Its beyond POV, its Double POV with a twist of corporate media influence on Wikipedia's culture. Pigs cannot fly, and neither does your reasoning for keeping this category. My sincere apologies if this all seemed like stepping on your toes. -Stevertigo 07:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Producer(s)
Moved to Talk:Producer (disambiguation)
Article of the week
I have turned your vote "against" wildlife as Article of the week into a "comment". AOTW uses approval voting (that is, we only count votes in support, not votes against).
I'm not sure what you mean by wildlife being "too short" - the aim of AOTW is to pick a stub or short article that can be turned into a featured-standard article by the end of one week, from widespread cooperative editing. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Misnunderstanding on my part, now corrected. Sorry. Andy Mabbett 10:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
LOTR
I suggest that you stop reverting the LOTR article to add it to the Birmingham category. You have already reverted more than three times, which can get you blocked from editing if you persist. So far you are the only person arguing for including it and at least three against it. older≠wiser 22:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I suggest you understand the guidlienes before you cite them to support your threats. Andy Mabbett 22:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)