User talk:JMF/Archives/2020/September

Parentheses

Hi there, just wanted to touch base about the reversion of my edit at English Engineering units. Per MOS:PAREN, which you cited, the wording inside the parentheses was a complete sentence, so needed that period inside the parentheses... right? Clearly no big deal, just trying to make sure I'm not misunderstanding something. Thanks much! Jessicapierce (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: Hi Jessica, thanks for raising it this way. I may be reading mos:paren the way I am because that is how I was taught and what looks right typographically. So I read the mos again, specifically the example Most people are right-handed... which clearly should be given as Most people are right-handed... because it is wrong :-^. I will self revert and put it down to EN-US v EN-UK to save face. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

EN-US v EN-UK? Jessicapierce is American, according to her user page. John Maynard Friedman is British, judging from the fact that he uses the word "bloke" on his user page. She appeals to MOS:PAREN in favor of leaving a period inside parentheses if it concludes a full sentence lying within the parentheses. He thinks that this is wrong in boldface, seeing his style as British.

I ran the issue past the husband of one of my nieces, a British native. Pointing out that the British call parentheses "brackets", he responded very promptly with a quote from a webpage of the University of Nottingham (UK):

Using other punctuation with brackets

Include full stops/exclamation marks/question marks/quotation marks before the close bracket only if the complete sentence/quote is in brackets. Otherwise, punctuate after the closing bracket.

I arrived at work at 9.30am (which is earlier than usual).

I arrived at work at 9.30am. (That's earlier than usual.)

It doesn't seem that this is a US –UK difference.

Peter Brown (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peter M. Brown: no, it is not a US/UK difference. I was just wrong. As I said to Jessica, I checked some UK and AU style guides and they agree with the MOS. In my defence, it is not an uncommon error and the Australian site has a quote from Jane Eyre in which Charlotte Brontë makes the same mistake. Sackcloth and ashes for me, I'm afraid. But I still think that ). is easier on the eye than .) but ... --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

Request to close discussion

Would an uninvolved editor please close Talk:European integration#Merge with 'United States of Europe' and 'Federalisation of the European Union' articles as no consensus [more accurately, consensus to reject]. If you don't have time to delete the hatnotes from the three articles, please let me know. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. HeartGlow ^(talk) 06:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice, please: how long should one wait?

Over two weeks ago I posted, on this talk page, a proposal to delete a diagram in Zeno's paradoxes. There has been no response. Do I give it another two weeks before proceeding? What is your practice? According to Pageviews, the article is viewed, on average, 1551 times/day and the talk page once per day. There are 549 watchers
Peter Brown (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

In August, I'd give it a month to be fair to folk on vacation or with family duties. Rest of year, two weeks is definitely ample. If someone objects, they can revert and discuss per WP:BRD. Be bold! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom’s Internal Market

I am having trouble with the United Kingdom’s Internal Market article as it is not formatting properly and need help fixing it please. ChefBear01 (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Michel Barnier

Hi! I've seen that you deleted my contribution in the Michel Barnier that I made about his positive of COVID-19, and you fully justified it. As I could not participate in the discussion because I did'nt even know that it had been opened, at least let me give you my opinion about it. It's true that it's something trivial, but I think it's an addition that enriches the article with a somewhat anecdotal question, even if it was'nt serious or made it impossible for him to work. Also taking into account the importance of his position on the European and British spectrum. Perhaps in some section of "Personal life" would be interesting. This has been done with other politicians of various categories. I do not see it badly. Thanks in advance! Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alsoriano97: You would have to dig back in the history but there was a discussion along the lines that if something happened in someone's personal life that did not have a significant effect on the primary (notable) aspect of their lives – in Barnier's case, his work as Commissioner or as Chief Negotiator – then that fact is itself not notable and fails the wp:TRIVIA test. If I hadn't been the one to revert your edit, there are others who would have because (if I remember correctly), it was unanimous. I'm not saying that you don't have a point – Roosevelt's polio is mentioned because it did have some effect on his Presidency despite his best efforts: but IMO what made it notable was the fact that a person with disability could hold the highest office in the land. I can't see anything similar in the case of Barnier? But if you continue to be dissatisfied, talk:Michel Barnier is the place to raise it for another discussion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)-