User talk:Davidjamesbeck

Welcome!

Hello, Davidjamesbeck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Lexical Functions, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 14:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moved

Hi,

I moved the Totonac article back to Sierra Totonac language, because that's really the subject of the article. There are many cases where we conflate several ISO codes into a single article, and it this case there isn't even a separate ISO code for Zapotitlán Totonac. There also isn't any information to speak of in the article, and it's not known how many languages there would be, so IMO there isn't much point in breaking it up further. "Highland/Sierra Totonac" is the usual name in the literature, and is therefore what people are likely to look for. I did, however, add a stub about there being multiple varieties that may be considered distinct languages.

If you want to develop a Zapotitlán Totonac article, that would be fantastic; but perhaps it would be best to start a new article? Generally in such situations we either describe a representative variety of a language cluster in the article on the entire cluster, or we create a separate article and in the cluster article say, 'for further info, see X'. Either would work.

Also, could you review the classification at Totonac languages? The list was misaligned, and I may have confused things further when I tried to straighten it up. — kwami (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, "Sierra Totonac" is a generally-accepted term for the group—what I objected to when I made the move was the anachronism (perpetuated in the ISO codes, which are terrible for this group) that there is a single language we can call "Highland Totonac". Long-term I do have plans to flesh out individual language pages, or subsections of this page, for some of these, at least describing what has been done on them. I haven't had much time for this lately.

I'll take a look at the classifications. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interfering with the references! I didn't realize you were going to shift to Harvard - I like the one with the Small caps authors names and hanging indent because it makes them more readable. Please change back if you prefer Harvard references. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong preference—I like in-line citations better than notes on the whole. I do like the look of the bibliography format you're using, though. Is there a way to keep both? (I'm not having luck with the cross-referencing between the citation and the ref list anyhow).Davidjamesbeck (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see if I can work out a solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems the harvard citations can't link without the Last parameter being specified, and the small caps don't work with that - so we'll have to make a choice I guess. If you prefer having the harvard inline citations I'll change the authornames back to the last first format.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What citation styles do work with the small caps format? We could go back to notes, it just seemed to me that having notes and then the full reference in the References section was "wasteful". But I have noted Wikipedia in general seems to prefer the notes style of citation—my favouring the in-line citation is just because it is what I'm used to. If you think that the pages would "fit in" better with the rest of WP if we have notes, by all means let's do that.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just the Mesoamerica project that uses the smallcaps author format, so it probably fits better with wikipedia to have the plain Harvard refs. Using notes is the most common but I think the inline parentheses look just as well and are easier to read and format. Let's just keep those.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll finish up the switch-over of the notes next chance I get. Cheers.68.149.175.141 (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I already did it. :) And merged the content from the page Totonac languages which is now a redirect. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thank you!!Davidjamesbeck (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]