User talk:Coreyemotela

Hi Coreyemotela! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you a favor? I think instead of going through a bunch of bird articles and only changing the case in the lede/taxobox, it would be more helpful to do one entire article before moving on to the next. In fact, I think only changing the lede is somewhat harmful, since you then leave a bunch of articles in a half-upper/half-lower state for some length of time, which is undesirable. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. But the fact that half of titles are capitalised and half are not is also undesirable. I thought it's better to (1) first take care of titles, infobox and leads and then (2) go in detail through the articles (there, people more specialised might be helpful). See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What's needed?. Coreyemotela (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Nope; no specialization is needed to do part (2). It's easy, just tedious. In any case, I don't think most of the bird enthusiasts are going to be doing this, so you're really leaving articles in a not-so-good state for a long period of time if you just change capitalization in the first sentence and nothing else. I urge you to not do that: having inconsistency between two articles is less jarring than one article being inconsistent with itself; I think that is pretty safe to say. I'm not sure what you want me to see at that link. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, we will need a lot of help from many contributors to help to have a consistent use throughout the encyclopaedia. It think we should start even if we are not able to finish alone. See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Plea (notably JHunterJ on 7 May 2014 at 18:44). Coreyemotela (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You keep referring me to discussions I've already participated in. In any case, my request stands: what you're doing is leaving the articles in a worse state for a long period of time. I think that's not helpful but disruptive. Instead of doing this, why not do this? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view and somehow I agree. But please also understand mine. The answer to your questions is obvious, it takes about ten times longer... And with the list of work to do I decided to first try to make the titles consistent. But your are right that working on the whole articles is also important and I would like to assure you that your help will be much appreciated. Coreyemotela (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The answer to your questions is obvious, it takes about ten times longer—My point here is that it would be better to do that 10x work before moving on to the next article. IOW, if you're going to spend, say, 1 hour, then it would be better to complete n articles rather than move 10xn articles and only touch their ledes/taxoboxes. I feel like this is pretty obvious, but I guess I don't need to say any more here about it. If nobody else is bothered enough to try to get you to stop I'll just move on. Cheers, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many more of these bird name decapitalization move requests are there likely to be? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite many as most article about bird species need to be adapted to Wikipedia's guidelines. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Implementation of the consensus. Coreyemotela (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

About how many in numbers is "quite many"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not give you a number because I do not know the answer. I you need an estimation, you could ask on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Implementation of the consensus. See also User:JHunterJ/Articles under the category Birds by location. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

See also User:Stfg/Sandbox4. Coreyemotela (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Coreyemotela. I declined one decapitalization move per this diff. The target, Thick-billed parrot, is already in use for the genus. Of course using capitalization for disambiguation is uncommon. See if you can propose a different move and consider opening a WP:RM. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I submitted a move request Talk:Thick-billed Parrot#Requested moves. Coreyemotela (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop moving portals! Please instead do them one at a time, getting each one fixed and working before doing the next. The instructions are at Help:Moving a page#Moving a portal. Also note that your "requested move" discussion was closed as "No consensus". -- John of Reading (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved three portals ("Parliamentary procedure" , "Software testing" and "Molecular and cellular biology") for which there were a consensus. I am currently fixing the links. Let me know if you still see issues in fifteen minutes and I will fix them. Thanks! Coreyemotela (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I used Special:PrefixIndex to find a few sub-pages you missed, and AWB to change a few occurrences of the old name. Remaining problems:

• At Portal:Molecular and cellular biology "Selected article", there is a red "Archive" link. I'm not sure where that should go.

I think the link was already red before the renaming. We could discuss this on the talk page of the portal. Coreyemotela (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Portal:Portal:Molecular and cellular biology/Did you know archive has a double "Portal" prefix, and it will need admin assistance to unscramble it.

I saw my mistake while renaming and submitted a technical move request. Coreyemotela (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Portal:Software Testing/WikiProjects is a strange page. It should perhaps be moved to its creator's user space.

We could discuss this on the talk page of the portal. Coreyemotela (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

But I wouldn't be surprised if someone reverts all these moves and changes, coming as they do so soon after a failed "Requested move". -- John of Reading (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why the changes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is to make it more clear. HIV is not a disease, it is a virus. Coreyemotela (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please don't move portal boxes to the bottom, making them into wide bars. I don't see how that is better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It helps to improve the logic flow and the layout to place them just below the navigation templates in a similar horizontal fashion. Coreyemotela (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You are a relatively new Wikipedian. I see that your first edits were in August 2013. IMO, it is better to concentrate on content when you are a new editor. Trying to impose your formatting preferences on articles that you have never worked on before is like joining the editorial board of a magazine and immediately insisting that they change the magazine's layout. Different people find different formats helpful. IMO, putting the portal info at the bottom gets it lost in the variety of other bars at the bottom of articles. Putting it in a box just under the "External links" headings make them both smaller and more prominent. But there is certainly no justification for moving from one position to another without forming a new consensus at an article to move them, or at least checking to be sure that none of the editors who have been working on the article mind the move. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what about Wikipedia:Be bold? Secondly, your example is bad as there is no navigation template to be confused with on that page. Thirdly, the side is usually occupied by links to sister projects. Finally, I see no consensus or previous discussion about this matter there. Coreyemotela (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Be bold says: "Don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted". Don't edit war. If you make a bold edit and someone reverts it, open a discussion on the talk page instead of warring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did open the discussion on Talk:Musical theatre today (at 16:37) and you know that as you answered my message there (at 17:18). Coreyemotela (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop incorrectly naming psychological tests, checklists, and scales. "Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised" is not known as "revised autism diagnostic interview" by its creators or among professionals in the field. The acronym is ADIR, not RADI; and there's a good reason for that: it establishes continuity with the previous edition of the test. Test publishers name tests the way they want them to be named (it's a simple matter of going to the publisher's website to confirm this), and it is entirely inappropriate for you to unilaterally decide to rename them in Wikipedia articles. And please stop changing appropriate capitalization; tests are published works and as such the names are considered proper nouns; see WP:NCCAPS for information about capitalization for proper nouns. Test titles are no different than book titles. The Three Musketeers is not known as "the three musketeers", and the article title has proper capitalization. Please correct the articles in which you have inappropriately renamed tests. Thank you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor, you are correct; however I wish to encourage you to assume good faith about other editor's actions! "Unilateral" decisions is after all what Wikipedia is built upon. :-) I have renamed the ADOS article to Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule and the ADI-R article to Autism Diagnostic Interview. This is in line with what the manual of style says, also see articles such as Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Beck Depression Inventory. I could not move the CARS one for technical reasons, so I listed it at WP:RM. Best wishes to both of you! /skagedal^talk 06:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]