Jump to content

Talk:Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CONTRACTIONS and MOS:INSTITUTIONS

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Beccaynr § "Creative Writing Program"?
 – Beccaynr (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Beccaynr, I have seen your recent edit to the Chitra Bannerjee article. According to the manual of style, in most cases we don't capitalize academic departments or programs in Wikipedia. Edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Institutions Also, "University of Houston's" is a possessive, rather than the forbidden contraction. Quisqualis (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quisqualis, I moved this discussion from my Talk page because it seems best to continue to discuss it here after you restored the contraction and a generic form of description for what appears to be an official name of an institution [1]. From my view, MOS:CONTRACTIONS discourages contractions whenever possible and outlines limited exceptions that do not appear to apply here. Also, the Creative Writing Program appears to be the official institutional name, e.g. see University of Houston, so for the first mention of the program in the main article, it seems better to use the institutional name. Per the MOS, if there are other mentions of the program generally after that, then the lowercase generic seems appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Beccaynr, before I address the capitalization (promotional, in my view) issue, let's deal with the apostrophe. This is what I wrote on your talk page:
Also, "University of Houston's" is a possessive, rather than the forbidden contraction. Quisqualis (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quisqualis, I copied your message here to continue the conversation and cite the MOS, because the MOS appears to broadly discourage contractions beyond a few exceptions that do not apply here - if there is a MOS I am not aware of, please let me know. The use of a contraction also does not appear appropriate in this context, because the use of the official name of the institution appears supported by the MOS. From my view, it is not promotional to use the official name of the institution where the subject works. Beccaynr (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "University of Houston's" is a possessive, rather than the forbidden contraction. Quisqualis (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Quisqualis, from my view, repeating yourself is not helpful. My understanding is that formal writing is encouraged, which means the use of institutional names and formal language for the first mention of the Creative Writing Program at the University of Houston would be better for this article, also because it is more precise. Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr, repeating myself was necessary, given that the person in question appeared to be more interested in their own voice than in reading my original post. Sorry if it seems rude of me.
"Creative Writing Program" isn't the same usage as Iowa Writers' Workshop or Yale University School of Law. I find the CWP sort of capitalization not to be encouraged in any guideline on WP (please look it up for me), and have been decapitalizing such usage for years with no adverse events until now. I see it as the sort of capitalizaton used by PR offices. All I want is either an actual discussion or to allow my edit. So far, I have been read the riot act, and no discussion seems to be forthcoming until the contraction-seer actually hears what was said.
Thanks for trying to help, but my one of my chief "prey items" in editing is informal writing, and I don't indulge in it myself in article space. You may want to note that I've made over 24,000 edits in the past 15 years, not counting earlier IP edits. Red name or no. Quisqualis (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking your approach is more reminiscent of law school, which in its ideal includes a Socratic method, but as applied to this discussion, has not felt helpful, similar to commentary such as the person in question appeared to be more interested in their own voice than in reading my original post after I had asked you for further information. I am trying to talk to you about reasons for the edit as a whole, and my perspective on formal writing, based on good-faith concerns with how the subject is described in the article.
From my view, apostrophes often appear informal (even when I do not use the correct term to describe a specific use when trying to discuss one aspect of my reasoning), and the use of the official name of a program, i.e. University of Houston Creative Writing Program (which I understand to be common in university graduate programs), in its first mention in the main article seems more formal. I am trying to apply both of these perspectives to this specific instance. This graduate program has a more generic-sounding name, but it appears to be as distinct as the Iowa Writers' Workshop, so I think the official name should be used.
And if you would like to see me read riot acts, check out my work in Companies-related AfDs, but I apologize for coming across as anything close to that here. I am trying to learn more about the inner workings of the encyclopedia that I obviously have less experience with, and I appreciate your patience. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and LOL. Go ahead then. Quisqualis (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chitra_Banerjee_Divakaruni&oldid=1257674804"