Talk:Saiyuki

Serial comma

The use of a serial comma before 'and' or 'or' at the end of a list is generally not standard in British English though it has its advocates. Its main advantage is the avoidance of ambiguity which does not apply in this case. There is no consensus as to its use in Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Mos#Serial commas. Abtract (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. No need for removing it then. Also, I have seen most dabs not omit the final comma. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this edit

This recent edit goes against mos:dab#Introductory line; indeed this article is given as an example of how to do it. Abtract (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read that last part where it says, "Bang or bangs may refer to:" ... I've done a similar edit to Shinto (disambiguation) anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mos:dab#Introductory line actually says It is not necessary to repeat all variations of capitalization, punctuation or spelling: "AU may refer to" is preferable to "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to"; and "Saiyuki may refer to" is preferable to "Saiyuki, Saiyūki, Saiyûki, or Saiyuuki may refer to. The bit you quoted above refers to plurals and similar. Abtract (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it says "It is not necessary to repeat all variations ..." not "Do not repeat any variation." The box says this:

Bang or bangs may refer to:

or

Bang(s) may refer to:

I'm just using the former. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you render me speechless. Abtract (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's something you've inhibited yourself, I'd get a doctor to look at that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need my friends quite like me that way lol :) Abtract (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of an edit that shows good understanding of mos:dab#Introductory line. Abtract (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're obviously not listening. Read what I said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that it was your edit I gave the diff for? An edit where you removed variants from the opening line, per current guidelines. Abtract (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I said here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read everything you say very carefully but sometimes even then I don't quite get your drift. I think I understand you now ... you are saying that, when you made this edit, you understood that the guidelines are against adding minor variants to the opening line but that you are now choosing to use a section of the guideline concerning "plurals" to justify adding an extremely minor variant (not connected with plurals) to the opening line. Abtract (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Seriously, I don't even know what you just said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]