Welcome!

Hello, RJN/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to be aquainted with the contributor User:UH Collegian, would you? -JCarriker 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I miss the contibutions of any good editior. :> -JCarriker 22:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary for Houston -- "Removed advertisement and boosterism. Also, this section is supposed to be a summary, not in detail depicting a user's POV..." AGREED! - obviously a personal agenda Postoak 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you so much for your help with the Dallas, Texas article. I still have one major problem with the page.. and that is the districts/communities section. There are separate subpages for each neighborhood/district/area in the city.. all listed on the Dallas neighborhood template that you moved to the bottom of the page. All those descriptions of the neighborhoods i think should be deleted and replaced with some more generalized text and a small listing (seven) of the core Dallas areas (labeled districts): Downtown Dallas, East Dallas, North Dallas, Oak Cliff, South Dallas, Uptown, and West Dallas. What do you think..? drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I used the layout of the Houston template for the Dallas ones. One thing you might consider doing is placing "text-align: center;" in the style declaration at the top of both the neighborhood and metropolitan ones.. when people have their text auto-justified (per their preferences), the title and items on the left are pushed up against the left-side of the template. This happened to mine until I inserted that style declaration.. you can check out the Template:Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex or Template:Dallas to see the differences in coding.. If you haven't edited the community section on the Dallas page, I'll go ahead and do that. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 01:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it is worded it wwould be correct. Houston is the largest economic area along the U.S. Gulf coast, and would be if you included the Mexican Gulf coast as well, if however it were rephrased to say the largest economic area in a Gulf state then that phrase would be inaccurate and the title would go to DFW. Also, would you mind updating your user information at WikiProject US regions also chcek out its new map series. -Thanks. -JCarriker 04:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've done some work lately on Sugar Land, Texas. The article generally suffers from a lack of source citations. Any chance you might be able to add some?

On a related note, I see that you've written that Sugar Land is earthquake free and contrasted it with Houston. Do the faults in Houston actually produce quakes?

Thanks for your work on this one! Gwimpey 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: What were you planning on doing to the Long Beach, California article? ^BlankVerse 11:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to it in a few days. -JCarriker 22:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here (at right) is the map you requested it is the first Texas map made using WikiProject Maps suggested guidelines. Please use this caption: "Regional definitions vary from source to source. The counties shown in dark red are usually included, while all or portions of the striped counties may or may not be considered part of Southeast Texas." Thanks. -JCarriker 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the lead section in New Radicals from "The New Radicals were" to "The New Radicals was"? Grammatically, shouldn't it be either "The New Radicals were" or "New Radicals was" (without "the")? (See also The Beatles, The Supremes, Sex Pistols...) --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the page you linked it says "These are nouns that are singular in form". Given that the band's name is a plural, shouldn't it be "were"? --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what a collective noun is, I just doubt these band's names are collective nouns. As I said before, the link you posted says that collective nouns are "nouns that are singular in form", and band names like New Radicals, The Beatles, The Supremes and Sex Pistols are - unlike your example "hair" - clearly not singular in form.--Fritz S. (Talk) 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So by your definition "The Muppets is happy" and "The Sex Pistols is recording its new album" is correct, right? Again, I think grammatically these band/group names are plural. Sure, you can substitute "band" for the group name, but you could also write "four persons", which is plural. Similarly "New York Yankees" and other sports teams are plural noun phrases and used as a plural ("The New York Yankees are..."), even if the New York Yankees are just one team. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're honestly claiming that "The Muppets", "The Beatles" and "New York Yankees" are singular?! --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this: "Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both American and British English." See Singular and plural for nouns. Guess you were wrong, eh? --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With saying you were wrong I was refering to your claim that "were" is incorrect. On American_and_British_English_differences it clearly states that the plural form ("The New Radicals were") is correct in both British and American English, therefor I think we should use this in the article and not use a form that is wrong in either one. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I don't respect your style, I just wanted to make sure it's correct, as several other articles - including several featured articles - use these band names as plurals. Same goes for articles about American topics, such as New York Yankees. I also never said I was taught British English instead of American English. However, as according to American_and_British_English_differences "The New Radicals were" is correct in both variations of English, what's wrong with using that? --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article above, both "New York Yankees are" and "New York Yankees is" are correct in American English. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong saying "New York Yankees is" is correct, on the page it says "Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both American and British English.", so "New York Yankees is" would be incorrect, even in American English, as "New York Yankees" is - as far as I'm concerned - plural. That's why I found your edits strange, as I can't see why "The Muppets", "The Beatles", etc. are singular. The page you quoted says collective nouns are "nouns that are singular in form", now you're saying these are singular because they're collective nouns. That's clearly a paradoxon! --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep assuming I prefer BE. Actually, I'm studying AE. I'm not trying to force some other other variation onto you here, I want to make sure the article is correct by AE standard. Please don't think of this as a personal attack. According to Singular and plural for nouns the correct way in both BE and AE is "is/was" in cases with plural proper nouns. They even give "The Beatles are a well-known band." as an example that's supposedly correct in both variations.

And about your example that "New York Yankees" can be replaced with "the team" (which I totally agree is singular): It can also be replaced with "40 baseball players", which is plural, right? --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While being a collective entity, these are still plurals. You wouldn't say "a New Radicals" or "one New York Yankees", which were correct if these were singular, but rather "a New Radical" and "one New York Yankee", right? But I'm curious what your copyeditor says about this. --Fritz S. (Talk) 00:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I was just going by the pages I read (basically the link you sent me and that Wiki page about singular and plural for nouns), I wasn't able to contact anyone from my university as we still have holidays until next week, but if the experts you contacted say the single form is correct... Although I still can't find any evidence that these are singular instead of plural (Katefan0's example with "family" doesn't really help here). Going by Singular and plural for nouns "New Radicals" is plural, but as you said, there is a chance not everything on Wikipedia is correct. ;-)

There are in fact far less people studying AE than BE, even at my university. I picked it because I'm more interested in American culture than in British, especially as American culture more and more becomes the dominant culture everywhere around the world via Hollywood, American music, etc. --Fritz S. (Talk) 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I just found out why that sentence still seems wrong to me: Because of the "the" in front. Without that, it's perfectly fine. And you usually don't add "The" in front of singulars anyway, do you? I mean, it's the same with titles of books, movies, etc., right? These are all singular no matter of the words they are comprised of. And as the "the" isn't part of the band name (as it is for some other bands, like The Beatles, The Police,...) I think it should go. (It also isn't used in that label site you sent me) --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found something interesting: Another press release from the band reads "The New Radicals are disbanding", albeit under the heading "New Radicals dissloves"... seems like they can't really decide for themselves. ;-) But again, it's used as a singular without the "the", and as plural with it. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, despite our "differences" here you seem like a really nice person to me and I wouldn't let something like a "stupid" grammitical discussion become a personal feud or so. Actually, If you don't mind, I'd like to contact you somewhen if I have some questions or need someone to look over a text or something...

It's funny you mention being critisied for studying German, one professor told me that in recent years (basically since Bush is president) the numbers of students who enlist to study American English have dropped a lot. When I first started learning English at school I wasn't really that good and got pretty bad grades, but then I got interested in American pop culture, mostly comic books, and learned a lot by reading Batman etc. And now with DVDs and the internet and all that it's quite easy to get a lot of American input.

Oh, and if you're a New Rads fan, you might want to check out the forum at newradicals.net. There's a really great group of people there, it's a wonderful comunity. --Fritz S. (Talk) 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJN, just wanted to say don't be disheartened or offended by what anyone (including myself) says on the Language Reference Desk or talk pages regarding band names and singular pronouns. You edited boldly, backed up your claims with research and fact-checking, and inspired one of the most interesting debates I've seen on this site, all of which are hallmarks of a great Wikipedian. For what it's worth I am a British English speaker but I absolutely agree with you on the use of singular pronouns for collective nouns and band names, except for the obviously plural ones like The Beatles where I think style should override the grammatical rules. Regards, --Canley 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, there's an American-British usage difference going on here, which you can read about at American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. In British English it's correct to say not only "New Radicals are" but also "Aerosmith are". Likewise "The audience are listening" and even "My bank are just awful!". "Liverpool is" and "England is" refer to the places, but "Liverpool are" and "England are" refer to soccer teams. --Angr (t·c) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not worth edit warring over. I haven't even looked at the article to see which version is there at the moment, but my advice to both of you is just leave it how it is. --Angr (t·c) 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJN, you are changing "are" to "is" in many articles about bands and sports teams with plural names. I'm not sure this usage is correct. Your edit summary said "Copyedit: proper use of collective nouns in American English. See college level writting handbook for proper use of collective nouns and other things". Could you please name the college writing handbook which says you should use the singular "is" with plural collective nouns? I can't imagine that it's correct to say "The White Stripes is..." in either American or British English. According to American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns, "The White Stripes are" is correct in both American or British English. Thanks. Rhobite 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJN, I reverted your edits to the articles where you changed "are" to "is" (or "is" to "are") and "were" to "was" (or "was" to "were") because your kind of usage doesn't seem correct like these examples: "blink-182 are", "Meat Puppets was", "Green Day are", "Smashing Pumpkins was", "Sublime were" etc., you see that's not correct American or British English at all. That sounds like sloppy english. Alex 101 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those were one of my examples: "blink-182 are", "Meat Puppets was", "Green Day are", "Smashing Pumpkins was", "Sublime were" etc. I wasn't just trying to say you did it, just showing you proof. Alex 101 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where you were off to. Glad to see you back and editing! Maltmomma ^(chat) 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]