User talk:Zacwill

Archives

Archive 1

How ignorant. Sruffaunoughterluggatoora is Sruthán Uachtar Log an tSamhraidh in Irish, which translates as "Stream of the frozen log (even in) summer". Such a poetic language. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you think Llanfairpwllgwyngyll etc. etc. is a perfectly reasonable name for a town. Zacwill (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dull Twatt. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Effin Nobber. Zacwill (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zacwill

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton's coat of arms is recognised by the College of Arms and is clear for all to see: Gules three Bars Or and in chief four Bezants.

It would be interesting were Lord Lyon to contest this.

Primm1234 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primm1234: Scottish heraldry has a strict system of cadency. Cameron would not be able to bear those arms undifferenced unless he were the primogenital heir of the original bearer, which he isn't (I don't know what the exact line of descent is, but I do know that he's a second son). We can assume that the arms Cameron matriculated in the Lyon Register incorporated some kind of differencing mark, possibly a bordure. Zacwill (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zacwill: I agree... (but only basis Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton submits to the law of arms in Scotland).

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton's arms can be displayed Gules three Bars Or and in chief four Bezants. Since the College of Arms recognises his usage of these arms, and in consultation with Garter King of Arms Lord Cameron took the territorial designation of Chipping Norton, Lord Lyon would need to set down why Scots Law should prevail for an armiger resident in England (qv. York Herald).

Over to Lyon King of Arms (perhaps you could submit a Freedom of Information Request?), but without such clarification Gules three Bars Or and in chief four Bezants remains perfectly legitimate.

Best Primm1234 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primm1234: the problem is that you've introduced an unsubstantiated claim into the article. Without seeing the matriculation, you can't assert that the arms were matriculated "without differentiation". This is very likely to be untrue, for the reason I outlined above. Cameron is resident in England, yes, but Scottish rules apply when dealing with the Lord Lyon. Zacwill (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zacwill

I shall amend "without differentiation" to "without making mention of differentiation", should that suffice until the Lyon Court clarifies (matriculation ofc does not necessarily involve cadency, although I believe you & I agree it ought to in this case). Most ambiguous - RSVP Lord Lyon...

Best Primm1234 (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primm1234: I think it would be better if the previous wording were restored. For one thing, the arms seen in the tweet are not "Lord Cameron's" – they are Sir Ewen's, as York Herald says himself. Zacwill (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section could be made much more concise, in fact. All we really need to say is: "Cameron's great-great-grandfather, Sir Ewen Cameron, was granted arms by the Lord Lyon in 1905. Cameron has matriculated a version of these arms. Since his mother is an heraldic heiress, he is also entitled to quarter the arms of Mount." Zacwill (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zacwill: Like it! Cheers Primm1234 (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zacwill

Thanks so much for excellent help with Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton’s arms...

I’ve got myself in a bit of a pickle ref. Annabel Warrender. I created this article trusting that it should be self-evident that she is worthy of inclusion, if for no other reason than Lady Colgrain is the current Lord Lieutenant of Kent.

However, I’m pretty sure I’ve put the wrong subject title: Warrender is her maiden name, and she was known as the Hon. Mrs Campbell until her husband succeeded to his family’s hereditary peerage as the 4th Baron Colgrain. So, unlike peeresses in their own right who may be styled Baroness, wives of barons are afforded the courtesy style of The Lady... suo matrimonio.

Cognoscento, you’ll further understand that although Lady Colgrain can be addressed as such verbally, formally she is the Lady Colgrain, so as not to be confused for the wife of a baronet or knight!

Much obliged for your expert guidance – RSVP. Primm1234 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be "Annabel Campbell, Baroness Colgrain"? Zacwill (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zacwill

I agree – Annabel Campbell, Baroness Colgrain would be a better way to name the article.*

Many thanks & how to change it svp?

Primm1234 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
  Find sources: "Annabel Warrender" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
  This is what it says at the top of the article about her... Accepting that I created the article under the wrong name, but surely there can be no doubt about Lady Colgrain's notability? Primm1234 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Qv. Talk:Annabel_Warrender#Annabel_Campbell,_Baroness_Colgrain Primm1234 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your latest edit note I see your point, the section should stay up but i'll try and find a citation to prove that the reaction was primarily negative. MJ9674 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would still be to remove the section altogether. Why do we need to hear Morrissey's take on the atrocity? Morrissey has also said that he considers the Chinese to be subhuman; does that mean the article "Chinese people" should contain a section discussing his remarks? Zacwill (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated some of the material you removed and added a bit more. This island/peninsula issue is one of a number of such conundrums - see also Fraoch-Eilean for example and I think spelling out the different views makes most sense. I am not so active these days but let's discuss on the talk page at SW if need be. Ben MacDui 13:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forewick Holm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulden.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello fellow traveller! You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Joe Pullen § On the distinction between "Posse" and "Lynch mob". — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I just wanted to follow up on this edit. Would you like me to offer an explanation of why the content is relevant? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of reasons why I made that edit. Firstly, I'm not sure why the List of Harry Potter characters article is discussing Katie Leung's experiences with racism. This is content that belongs in the Katie Leung article. Secondly, the claim that Cho Chang's name is offensive or stereotypical is very debatable and for the most part is only found in the stupider parts of Twitter. Zacwill (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumbledore's Army article previously included some pushback on the claim but I see that that content was removed by you here. Zacwill (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I understand the view that Leung's experiences belong on her page. I also know that the sources citing criticism of the name were a bit flimsy, and perhaps blew out of proportion the comments of a small number of Twitter users. Thanks for your dedication to quality on Wikipedia and for paying attention to things like this. Just for the record, the pushback content I removed came from unreliable sources (as far as I can tell). Wafflewombat (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,

I've reverted your good-faith edits on Taíno, because there's long-standing consensus that Indigenous in this context should always be capitalised. See Indigenous peoples of the Americas and this article at the CMS: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Capitalization/faq0106.html

The example given by the CMS perhaps isn't the most helpful, but I would compare it with a term like American. That word is capitalised even when used as an Adjective (American cars, for example), and hence Indigenous also is. The exception would be when you talk about indigeneity other than that of Indigenous people, such as saying "this animal is indigenous to Canada" or the "Welsh are indigenous to Wales", etc.

It's not at all a major issue, but I just wanted to explain the grammar of it, because other manuals of style don't always agree and it's not immediately obvious. Hope this helps. Lewisguile (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such consensus on Wikipedia. Zacwill (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is on this article. "No consensus on Wikipedia" doesn't mean "it's wrong". Quoting from the source you provided yourself, WP says:

• "Native American" and "Indian" are capitalized when referring to individuals and their citizenship. Numerous style guides state that "Indigenous" should also be capitalized, though this position has not gained consensus on Wikipedia. Though Indigenous identities are not racial, they are usually treated with the same guidelines as ethnic and racial terms. Here are some style guides and reporter's guidelines:
  • The Associated Press: "The news organization will also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place."
  • APA style: APA Style - Racial and Ethnic Identity. Section 5.7 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition, September 2019."Capitalize 'Indigenous' and 'Aboriginal' whenever they are used. Capitalize 'Indigenous People' or 'Aboriginal People' when referring to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of Canada), but use lowercase for 'people' when describing persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., 'the authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to different nations')."
  • The Chicago Manual of Style: Capitalization: "We would capitalize 'Indigenous' in both contexts: that of Indigenous people and groups, on the one hand, and Indigenous culture and society, on the other. Lowercase 'indigenous' would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species."
  • Native American Journalists Association: Reporter's Indigenous Terminology Guide, NAJA AP Style Guide, "So you need an Indigenous Expert... Start here"
  • The United Nations updated their Editorial Manual to include that "Indigenous should be capitalized when referring to cultures, communities, lands, languages, etc., of Indigenous Peoples, e.g.: Indigenous culture in Ecuador, Indigenous languages are dying out. If referring to flora or fauna, lower case should be used."

Note that the page itself uses the capital letter and most of these sources use Indigenous. If you want to unilaterally change the article, you need to first obtain consensus on the talk page. Lewisguile (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you should accuse me of making unilateral changes when it was a unilateral change that introduced capitals into the article. Previously, "indigenous" had been used. Zacwill (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was five months ago. If no one objects to a change, consensus can be assumed. Conversely, this time I am objecting to your edits, so there isn't consensus for your changes. I also believe the spelling fits WP:CONSUB as per Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean. As I requested a BRD to resolve this amicably, I have now set up a thread for that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ta%C3%ADno#Capitalisation,_potential_edit_warring_and_WP:BRD Please join me over there and we can get the view of other editors. Lewisguile (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the above thread as I realised the latest edit kept Indigenous and only changed peoples—>people. I am happy with that edit, which I think is technically correct either way. I appreciate your compromising with me on this.A Lewisguile (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your recent edit on the Dutch angle article concerning the origin of the term and reverted this. You were perfectly right to state that OED is a valid reference, but it wasn't cited properly here. Basically, someone seems to have created their own etymology for "Dutch angle" by looking up "Dutch" and "angle" instead of looking at "Dutch angle" as a single term/concept. I explained this further on the talk page, but I thought I'd let you know personally to prevent a future misunderstanding of my edit/revert. Vlaemink (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. Zacwill (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't persist in adding nonsense to the article. --Altenmann >talk 23:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you engage with my comments on the talk page instead of sending me rude messages? Zacwill (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your tag is that prawns were considered to have a "bearded" appearance due to their antennae and seta)e, and having a beard was considered something that distinguished Ainu people from Japanese people. It might be difficult to express that in the article in a way that wouldn't sound derogatory/discriminatory (and in fact the term Emishi itself is now often considered derogatory), but hope this helps. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question. I think it would be beneficial to include this in the article, since the connection between prawns and beards is not obvious and the sentence currently reads like a non sequitur. It's clearly possible to explain the term without saying anything disparaging about the Ainu, since you have just done so. Zacwill (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]