User talk:Auntof6
|
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 |
 First steps tutorialOur first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.  Getting helpMore information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
 Goodies, tips, and tricks
 Made a mistake?
|
Rd232 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Queens consort
[edit]Haha - queens consort - I had a good giggle over that one. Should have spotted it. Thanks! Storye book (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book:
No problem. Someone who's a "queen's consort" (consort of a queen) would be categorized under Category:Kings consort. Sometimes plurals of multiple-word terms can be tricky: queens consort, kings consort, mothers-in-law, attorneys general, etc. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- And bêtes noires: the group are, the family are, the company are – up with which I shall not put. Pedantry rules, hehe. Storye book (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book: Well, bêtes noires is French, so the rules are different. The usage with group, family, and company is British English, and is just a different way of seeing things. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. I meant that using those singular nouns as if they were plural was a bête noire of mine. A bête noire in English usage means something that irritates one. So my above comment means that I don't like other people saying "the family are" or "the company are". The idea that it is OK grammatically on the grounds of being British English is nonsense.
- @Storye book: Well, bêtes noires is French, so the rules are different. The usage with group, family, and company is British English, and is just a different way of seeing things. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- And bêtes noires: the group are, the family are, the company are – up with which I shall not put. Pedantry rules, hehe. Storye book (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Verbal common usage is different from Standard English, which is a written convention. In reality, people can (and do) verbalise in whatever manner they like. However, in Standard English there are rules of logic. The reason for that is that we need Standard English where we need clarity, e.g. in science and in law - and also in WP articles, so as not to confuse our international readership. So it is inappropriate to pretend to judge verbal English by Standard English standards. I was making a joke. Therefore, the last part of my above comment is intended to show that I was laughing at my own inappropriate pedantry.
- America does have parallels. When I was diving with some Smithsonian profs who were writing a fish book, we had plenty of deck time to talk. They were of course well-educated, but they would way "I don't got" instead of their traditional "I don't have". That phraseology arose when the British usage of "got" replaced "have" in the US as a single word, and not as a phrase. In British verbal English it's "I haven't got". It was interesting to hear that the Smithsonians knew very well that it was grammatically nonsense, and that they would not use it in their formal journal articles, for example. In their words, they "knew it was wrong, but hey, everyone says it now". "Don't got" is now in all the British TV dramas, which, for me at least, is tiresome. Let the Americans say it, but for us "haven't got" makes sense. "Got" in British English always meant "in my possession", "acquired" or "become" - a bit like the American "gotten", except that "gotten" doesn't mean "in my possession". It is sometimes said here (joke alert) that the UK needs an Academie, like the French one. Storye book (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book: Yes, I'm familiar with all that. I teach English as a second language, and I often have to explain to my students why they hear people speaking in ways that are different from the "correct" way they are learning. Sometimes it's because words follow rules from other languages (like bêtes noires, which is from French and follows the French rule of adjectives matching the gender and singular/plural of the noun they modify), sometimes it's due to differences in varieties of English (Brits say "the team are" because they look at the team as a collection of individuals; Americans say "the team is" because they see a team as one entity), sometimes it's because casual speech is different from formal speech, and sometimes it's because the other person doesn't know the "correct" way. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you except for the statement that "the team are" is British English. It is common usage now, in the UK, and I must tolerate it, but according to Standard English (OK, the written version - but it's a basis for the verbal) it is not British English; it is an error, like mispronouncing "mischievous" as "mischeevious" In Standard English it is clear that "the team are" is a logical error because "team" is a singular noun. I think we need to differentiate between linguistic usage founded in linguistic roots, changing linguistic environments and downright creativity - and linguistic usage founded in poor literacy. People who say "the team are" will also write "the team are", and will find it difficult to comprehend that "team" in that context is singular. Storye book (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book: OK, I see. Thanks for the insight. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that conversation. It was fun. Storye book (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) as a native English speaker (from the U.S., but spent a few years of my life in the UK): collective nouns are tricky on both sides of the pond. For a company, the U.S. consistently uses singular ("Microsoft is") but the UK tend to lean the other way ("Microsoft are"). Even in the U.S., athletic teams tend to be treated as plural, especially when the name is grammatically plural ("The Texas Rangers are") but sometimes even when it is not ("The Seattle Kraken are"). I can't imagine anyone saying "The Green Bay Packers is", but I have (at least in the U.S.) heard "Manchester United is". - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that conversation. It was fun. Storye book (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book: OK, I see. Thanks for the insight. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you except for the statement that "the team are" is British English. It is common usage now, in the UK, and I must tolerate it, but according to Standard English (OK, the written version - but it's a basis for the verbal) it is not British English; it is an error, like mispronouncing "mischievous" as "mischeevious" In Standard English it is clear that "the team are" is a logical error because "team" is a singular noun. I think we need to differentiate between linguistic usage founded in linguistic roots, changing linguistic environments and downright creativity - and linguistic usage founded in poor literacy. People who say "the team are" will also write "the team are", and will find it difficult to comprehend that "team" in that context is singular. Storye book (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Storye book: Yes, I'm familiar with all that. I teach English as a second language, and I often have to explain to my students why they hear people speaking in ways that are different from the "correct" way they are learning. Sometimes it's because words follow rules from other languages (like bêtes noires, which is from French and follows the French rule of adjectives matching the gender and singular/plural of the noun they modify), sometimes it's due to differences in varieties of English (Brits say "the team are" because they look at the team as a collection of individuals; Americans say "the team is" because they see a team as one entity), sometimes it's because casual speech is different from formal speech, and sometimes it's because the other person doesn't know the "correct" way. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- America does have parallels. When I was diving with some Smithsonian profs who were writing a fish book, we had plenty of deck time to talk. They were of course well-educated, but they would way "I don't got" instead of their traditional "I don't have". That phraseology arose when the British usage of "got" replaced "have" in the US as a single word, and not as a phrase. In British verbal English it's "I haven't got". It was interesting to hear that the Smithsonians knew very well that it was grammatically nonsense, and that they would not use it in their formal journal articles, for example. In their words, they "knew it was wrong, but hey, everyone says it now". "Don't got" is now in all the British TV dramas, which, for me at least, is tiresome. Let the Americans say it, but for us "haven't got" makes sense. "Got" in British English always meant "in my possession", "acquired" or "become" - a bit like the American "gotten", except that "gotten" doesn't mean "in my possession". It is sometimes said here (joke alert) that the UK needs an Academie, like the French one. Storye book (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This is showing up in Special:UncategorizedCategories. Looks like it's yours, and you probably have a better chance of categorizing it correctly than I do. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: It looks like Clay fixed it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, cool, added a parent I was unaware of. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are just terms
[edit]Hi. I am of the belief that disambiguation pages are just terms, not specific to some other classification. As if they are specific they are not so much disambiguation, as then we are starting a very weird path to a vague sort of classification. Here I am talking about something like Category:Disambiguation categories of artists. How can we sort and justify like that? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't have created that (in 2021) if there hadn't already been similar categories. For example, the one for populated places (created in 2016) and the one for churches in Sweden (created in 2009). It helps people find links to specific kinds of things they'd like to disambiguate.
- I believe that the subcats of each of these categories are also in the main category, so they aren't removed from the main list. If that's not the case, it can be made so. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have thrown a conversation into VP to address. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Photographs by date by country has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Josh (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
«Вікі любить Землю» 2024 в Україні проходить з 1 по 31 липня!
[edit]
Доброго дня!
Ви брали участь у конкурсі «Вікі любить Землю» в Україні раніше, тож приносимо вам важливу новину — Вікі любить Землю повернувся! Цього року конкурс відбувається протягом липня.
Як і в попередні роки, долучитися до змагання можуть усі охочі — як професійні фотографи, так і аматори. Головне, щоб ви любили Землю і розділяли ідею конкурсу — представити природно-заповідні території України за допомогою світлин під вільними ліцензіями. У Вікіпедії та Вікісховищі конкурсні фото будуть доступні тисячам людей.
Загальний формат конкурсу такий же, як у минулі роки. Стежте за новинами проєкту у Facebook, Instagram або в блозі. Також ключова інформація буде з'являтися на сторінці у Вікісховищі.
Важливо! Цього року з міркувань безпеки до участі у фотоконкурсі приймаються лише фото, зроблені до 31 березня 2024 року (включно) для звичайних фото та до 23 лютого 2022 року (включно) для знімків з дронів та інших літальних пристроїв.
Рекомендуємо уважно ознайомитись з правилами конкурсу та звернути увагу на вимоги щодо якості фотографій. Цьогоріч мінімальна роздільна здатність фотографій, які приймаються на конкурс, становить 2 Мп.
Сподіваємося на вашу участь у липні! -- Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки». 03:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)