Echinacea

Archives

/Archives/2009 /Archives/2010 /Archives/2011 /Archives/2012 /Archives/2013 /Archives/2014 /Archives/2015 /Archives/2016 /Archives/2017 /Archives/2018 /Archives/2019 /Archives/2020 /Archives/2021 /Archives/2022 /Archives/2023 /Archives/2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

I sometimes keep myself busy adding interlanguage links, which recently involved the "Moscow Institute of Philosophy, Literature and History". (There were slight variations among the approximately 20 articles that referenced this, e.g. "Institute of" vs. "Institute for"), plus spelling of "Philosophy". The presence or absence of a comma between "Literature" and "History" was the particularly annoying thing, since I wanted to be sure it was used consistently.

I generally prefer the Oxford comma, but I realize this usually the minority position, and a web search showed that only 40% of the hits used the Oxford comma

Nevertheless, it seemed to be quite "irregular" to omit the second comma, so I set up the label in Wikidata to use the Oxford comma and edited the 15 or so articles affected.

Article links are generally unforgiving about variations, so you can either create multiple versions of the link or just get it right when you create the link. To be sure, I really didn't like this without the Oxford comma, and I'm kind of looking for some confirmation of my decision to use the Oxford comma, and least in this instance. Fabrickator (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am a strong proponent of the Oxford comma. 40% is close enough to half that neither option seems "wrong" in this case. VQuakr (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr, Some times users are greatly involved and tend to get emotional. I was not online later, and you communicated well with User talk:Jim856796.

Just thanks Bookku (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your participation. I don't knovw if i can answer to your comments or not. Why did you remove my request from active disagreements? D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D.S. Lioness: because I provided a third opinion and therefore removed it from the list of items awaiting an opinion. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see...thank you D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just to be clear, I have not called into question your third opinion provided, but to satisfy requirements I'm notifying you that I mentioned your third opinion (and that I agreed with it) in WP:ANI § Proposal to temp block D.S. Lioness. I do not think there is any need for you to comment there if you do not wish to - again, this is just a formality since I referred to your (very well worded) comments in your 3O during that thread. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]