30,366
edits
Talk:Zinnia: Difference between revisions
→Aster's namesake
(forgot to sign again;; also btw unless you also looked it up yourself in the JPN version i'm pretty sure the source you're quoting your information from is me so this is really weird x'D) |
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:::::::::::And, again: with all the evidence currently being discussed, you are the only person who is currently saying that you don't accept that Aster was named after Zinnia's daughter. Of course, by the same token, I am also the only person saying it was her daughter. But my point is: your claims that "many others" believe exactly as you do are not currently supported. Please stop trying to claim authority in numbers. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 00:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::::And, again: with all the evidence currently being discussed, you are the only person who is currently saying that you don't accept that Aster was named after Zinnia's daughter. Of course, by the same token, I am also the only person saying it was her daughter. But my point is: your claims that "many others" believe exactly as you do are not currently supported. Please stop trying to claim authority in numbers. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 00:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
::::::::::::They didn't ''have'' to repeat it; it seems really, really odd to me for a mother talking about her child. I'm not saying the article should say Aster couldn't possibly be Aster's daughter — it can if you reach the way you do — but I disagree that ''"Aster seems to have been named after a [dead] daughter of Zinnia's"'', and I have given you my reasons as for why. I'm just trying to reach a compromise because I don't agree with your view anymore than you do with mine and while the current phrasing on the article could indeed be even worse, it is not neutral enough in my opinion and does not accurately reflect the ambiguity of the situation. You yourself admit that your claims are not any more supported by numbers than mine, so can't we find a phrasing that satisfies both of us and is — again — factual only?[[User:Azalee|Azalee]] ([[User talk:Azalee|talk]]) 01:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | ::::::::::::They didn't ''have'' to repeat it; it seems really, really odd to me for a mother talking about her child. I'm not saying the article should say Aster couldn't possibly be Aster's daughter — it can if you reach the way you do — but I disagree that ''"Aster seems to have been named after a [dead] daughter of Zinnia's"'', and I have given you my reasons as for why. I'm just trying to reach a compromise because I don't agree with your view anymore than you do with mine and while the current phrasing on the article could indeed be even worse, it is not neutral enough in my opinion and does not accurately reflect the ambiguity of the situation. You yourself admit that your claims are not any more supported by numbers than mine, so can't we find a phrasing that satisfies both of us and is — again — factual only?[[User:Azalee|Azalee]] ([[User talk:Azalee|talk]]) 01:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::::I'd actually be okay with "Aster ''may have'' been named after [...]" (without the emphasis). But I'm not really okay with offering other alternatives when the only evidence ("daughter", "Mum"/"Mama") points to a daughter. People can doubt that evidence, but presenting some other alternative (like "friend") in the face of that evidence is just terribly awkward (at ''best''). [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 01:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== B/W reference == | == B/W reference == | ||