Category talk:Demonstrations and protests by the Occupy movement

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Rename Category:'Occupy' protests[edit]

Rename to Category:"Occupy" protests, to match the stable Wikipedia article name. Created at this name while the Wikipedia article was moved to this name against consensus, and while another proposed move request was in progress. --Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 18:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The current name on Wikipedia (with double quotes) was created by me. I created the name on both Wikipedia and on the Commons. After studying the issue further I saw that the news media preferred single quotes when using quotes to name the protests. They use double quotes far less.
So I changed the name here to single quotes. I also tried to make this simple change on Wikipedia but you blocked it. The discussion on Wikipedia is ongoing. See: en:Talk:"Occupy" protests‎.
The Commons does not base its category names on what Wikipedia uses. The Commons also does not usually play the games that happen more often on Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Timeshifter's comments are a bit different than the facts, as he omits the relevant fact that there was a move discussion in progress to move the article to a name with no quotes at all, and he/she moved it to the name with single quotes while the discussion was in progress. It was also moved again to yet another name by yet another editor, while that move discussion was still in progress.
One of the guidelines for category names in Commons is the name of the main Wikipedia article, and the guidelines specify it should not follow Wikipedia article name changes. In this case, the stable name of the Wikipedia article is with double-quotes, so that that Commons guideline suggests the name with double-quotes.
It would have been better if the Commons category name were not set so quickly, but that seems to be the Commons guideline, so I suppose we need to deal with it that way. Does WP:IAR apply here, as well, so we should attempt to produce a reasonable category name, in spite of the guidelines? Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 14:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(unindent). The double-quote name has existed on Wikipedia for a very short time. Hardly stable. If you, or another admin, unlocked the page on Wikipedia, then we could change the name to single quotes, 'Occupy' protests. The news media uses the single-quote name far more often than the double-quotes name, "Occupy" protests.

A practical note. The RFC (request for comment) bot on Wikipedia tried to leave a notice at en:Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations. It got hung up at the double quotes. Click the link and you will see this: "A page with this title has previously been deleted. ... 18:29, 16 October 2011 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted 'Talk:List of' ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)." That was after I had removed the RFC notice and put a speedy tag on the page. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. This has to do with en.Wikipedia internal operation, which shouldn't be of interest to Commons, but I can't find an attempt by the RFC bot to do anything to that page. Please point to it.
The page has been previously deleted, because, after the pre-emptive move from double quotes to single quotes, RM Bot, not seeing its previous notification of the previously opened move request from double quotes to no quotes, placed its notification on the redirection page. In order to revert the move, I needed to first delete the redirects with RM-bot messages. Timeshifter seems unable to comprehend that moving an article while another move request of that article is in progress causes RM bot to damage the article so it cannot be moved back without an admin.
In any case, none of this has relevance to Commons. As I'm not a "heavy hitter" on commons, I'm requesting the category be renamed as I read the Commons guidelines on category names; the Wikipedia article name is preferred, with no mention of the Wikipedia category name. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think most people here care about the ins and outs of the Wikipedia article naming discussions. So I won't point out our many disagreements, and your many misrepresentations.
As for the RFC bot I used this RFC bot:
It is linked from here: en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment through talk pages. It was trying to add a notice to this page:
en:Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations. The page it actually ended up at shows 2 deletions of the page, one on October 16, 2011. The previous deletion was 27 February 2009. Neither deletion had anything to do with the recent use of the different bot you were talking about. See again here: en:Talk:List of. It is obvious you can not handle the technicalities. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's obvious that you cannot handle the technicalities. What you call the bot's edit on the deleted page is under your editor ID. As you know, you are responsbile for all the edits you make, even if made by a bot or script. It might be different if the "editor ID" RfC bot made the change. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 14:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
That is how bots work. I have made many edits with the Reflinks bot. See here: en:User:Dispenser/Reflinks. The bot does the edit and leaves a note in the edit summary that the edit was aided by a bot. One's user name is still listed. But the page has been deleted, so all one sees is the deletion notice. You really ought to learn more as a Wikipedia admin. I am an admin on Wikia and it takes a lot of study and/or experience to understand the MediaWiki software. And do you believe I am making up this story? You should assume good faith. I don't believe I have ever lied to you. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said, you are responsible for your actions, even if aided by a bot. In this case, your invocation of RfC bot resulted in an error. Previously, your move of the article resulted in RM bot creating an error. In the first case, the fault is yours, regardless of whether the Bot needs to be changed. In the second, the fault is probably the bot's, although I don't really want to stop w:RM bot because of your problem; it's simpler to revert the actions taken against guidelines so that the bot won't make misteaks. That reminds me, though. I need to check whether w:RM bot is tasked to do that. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 16:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I pointed out a bot mistake. I fixed the bot's mistake by a speedy delete. Problem solved. I did not make any RM (requested move) bot mistakes. I did not make any move requests. I moved the page to a new, better name with single quotes. Just as I had changed the page names of other related articles. Few people complained. As for your complaints you are not complaining about the actual name with single quotes. You are complaining about some bot redirects. The Commons does not care. The Commons goes by what is the best category name in our opinion, not Wikipedia's opinion.
You are complaining because of some bot redirects. So fix it, and stop complaining. Get over yourself. If you can't handle being an admin, and doing admin work, then stop being an admin. You obviously get overstressed by your admin work. And please do not bring all this stuff to the Commons. People don't waste time with all this bureaucratic stuff here. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm complaining because your out-of-process moves on en.Wikipedia could not be reverted except by an admin, because of RM bot errors. They were out-of-process, and are now stopped by move-protection until a name could be agreed on. However, I'm withdrawing this move request, because your policy is not to move a category until a good name can be agreed on, while Wikipedia policy allows a move from a clearly bad name to a better, but still not good, name. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 22:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
My move was out-of-process only to you. No one else complained when I moved the page from double quotes to single quotes. All the drama would have been unnecessary if instead of quickly reverting, you had thought about it more, or asked me my reasoning first. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Your errors on en.Wikipedia have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 23:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand your errors on Wikipedia have everything to do with the matter at hand. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I made no errors on Wikipedia in this regard. It appears I did make an error, here, as I didn't read all the naming guidelines. However, on Wikipedia, discussions of errors made on other Wikipedias are considered off-topic, and are usually hatted quickly. I don't know the policy here in that regard. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 03:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Your kneejerk reversion changing single quotes to double quotes was unnecessary even if you had to fix a few bot redirects. It may not have technically been an error, but it has ended up wasting time. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There may be a better name, but it certainly is not "Occupy" protests with double quotes. Can the {{Category for discussion}} tag be removed? I assume that is what you mean by withdrawing. And we can have a discussion without the tag. This talk thread can be moved to the category talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That's fine with me. On Wikipedia, it's discouraged for you to close your own nomination, even if you withdraw it, and even if you don't have any support. Possibly because there are more active users on Wikipedia than on Commons, there are more rules. However, I would say the current name doesn't even meet Commons's naming conventions. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 02:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I moved the discussion here per our consensus, and left a {{speedy}} tag at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/10/Category:'Occupy' protests. The speedy tag said: "Moved discussion to category talk page by consensus to withdraw CfD. See Category talk:'Occupy' protests." --Timeshifter (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Single quotes versus double quotes. Rules of grammar[edit]

In the end we should look at what the rules of grammar are.

I found this:

Use Single Quotation Marks in Headlines.

The Associated Press uses single quotation marks for quotations in headlines.

Use Single Quotation Marks to Highlight Words Not Being Used for Their Meaning.

It's the convention in certain disciplines such as philosophy, theology, and linguistics to highlight words with special meaning by using single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks.

It is from Single Quotation Marks Versus Double Quotation Marks. August 18, 2011. By Mignon Fogarty aka Grammar Girl.

We should use what reliable news sources use most, and what makes the most sense for various reasons. Scare quotes article has this: "If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning."

There are many examples from major news sources:

The news media usually use single quotes instead of double quotes when referring to the 'Occupy' protests. Search Google News to see. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is a "Commons" title analogous to a "headline" or not. I wouldn't think it is. A Wikipedia title is clearly not analogous to a headline. 18:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You forgot to sign in Arthur. I will address that at en:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style where you discussed that there also. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't warn me when I'm not logged in, as I don't have any tools here. I suppose, if I change my "skin", it would be more clear, as anons use the default skin. In any case, I discuss your further grammar errors in that section, also. Arthur Rubin (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 14:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Technical problems with double quotes[edit]

Double quotes in URLs are problematic when the URL is placed in some email, Facebook comments, Wikipedia, etc.. Many places can not make double-quote URLs clickable at all.

For example; try pasting in such URLs here:

  •'Occupy'_protests - single quotes.
  • - double-quote URLs can not be pasted in edit windows here, and stay with the double quotes. Wikipedia converted it to this version with %22 for the double quotes. It is hard to read such URLs. One of the beauties of Wikipedia is that one can share Wikipedia URLs and people can know what the article is about by reading the title in the URL. That is difficult with double quotes.

Facebook can not make URLs with double quotes clickable in messages and comments there. Many other comment and email forms can not use URLs correctly if they have double quotes in them. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style[edit]

Discussion started at en:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. See: en:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Scare quotes in titles. Single or double quotes. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)