User talk:Graham11

Welcome Message
--Apisite (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

TNG and countability
Hey dude. I don't think you understand countability. It doesn't mean "we don't usually use a plural of this word". It's a grammatical feature. Countable: one dog, two cats, three mice. Uncountable: some paper, an amount of rice, the water. Do you see? Would you please revise the TNG entry, or let me do it, if you don't get it? Equinox ◑ 12:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible that I'm misunderstanding something.
 * Looking at Appendix:Glossary, an uncountable noun is "a noun that cannot be used freely with numbers or the indefinite article, and which therefore usually takes no plural form." In BDSM communities, TNG stands for "the next generation". The term refers neither to a particular generation in an absolute sense (like ) nor to a particular kind of generation, but rather to young people as a class, so there isn't any way of counting it (one can't say one TNG or two TNGs). One also can't use an indefinite article with it (a TNG would imply that there could be more than one, which, by definition, there cannot be). What about the word makes it countable, to your understanding? Graham11 (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's the next generation, not "some" or "a bit of" next generation. (Of course it's unusual because "the" is baked into the abbreviation in the letter T.) So it has the same countability as "generation" (one gen, two gens, my gen). Equinox ◑ 07:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Why could the countability status of generation be necessarily inherited?


 * I noticed that your recent edit listed this sense of TNG as a proper noun. What qualifies it as a proper noun? It doesn't seem to refer "to a specific, unique thing, such as and " (Appendix:Glossary) any more than  (sense 5) does.


 * Additionally, I should note that I just returned the entry to the status quo while the matter is under discussion. Graham11 (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 🤣 You are cordially invited to defend your appalling decision here: Tea_room/2022/February. Equinox ◑ 07:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, the best thing you could do is probably to dig up some actual citations from books (if there are any) and thus provide evidence for the word in a sentence. Equinox ◑ 07:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think Equinox is basically right, but "TNG" is an abbreviation for a noun phrase, which normally totally disqualifies it from being a noun. A fortiori, it cannot be "countable" or "uncountable". Imaginatorium (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, it's The Quiet Revolution, not some numberless amount of rice, paper, ... so this is by no means an uncountable noun. Equinox ◑ 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this in reply to my having changed it from being an uncountable common noun to being a proper noun? Graham11 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

OCLC information for a quote
Hey there, I want to begin by thanking for the work that you do related to BDSM and sexuality entries. It is valuable work and I am glad to see someone is doing it. To the more specific reason for my making this post, I am wondering about your removal of the OCLC information for a quote. Can you clarify what you're reasoning was or if the removal was a mistake? Thanks and take care. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I really appreciate it.


 * I removed the OCLC number as I assumed that OCLC numbers would not normally be used alongside ISBNs (at least not in cases where the entry includes the ISBN too) as the ISBN already serves as a unique identifier and  can already take readers to WorldCat through one of the first links on Special:BookSources. For the same reason, the English Wikipedia generally excludes OCLC numbers from  for books with ISBNs even though the infobox is only used on articles about the book itself. (To clarify, though, I don't mean to suggest that we need to mirror the English Wikipedia generally.) To my mind, the inclusion of both numbers was largely redundant and only served to clutter the page. Graham11 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a good point that I hadn't thought of before, I'll probably act similarly in the future. Thanks for the clarification. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing OCLC:having ISBN and at the same time OCLC is ugly and stupid; ISBN is enough. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

kick oneself
That's strange. I reverted before I noticed that is itself a redirect. I don't think it should be. I will raise this at WT:TR. Equinox ◑ 00:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories
So where exactly do you get off removing BDSM from "facesitting" because "it's not always true", while adding Christianity category to "conciliarly" which is sometimes not about Christianity? What is your agenda? Other people than myself have recently criticised your slapdash edits so please be more careful. Equinox ◑ 02:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like I posted on your talk page at the same time as you posted here. As I noted there, I don't object to the categorization, only to the use of a context label that limits the scope of our definition. What do you think? Graham11 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * All right, gotcha. But please consider moving this stuff to a category in future instead of just wiping it. Thanks! Equinox ◑ 02:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Graham11 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)