| Revision as of 02:59, 30 July 2005 editTobias Conradi (talk | contribs)37,615 edits →Your breaking of wikipedia← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:25, 14 October 2024 edit undoPaine Ellsworth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors255,886 editsm Undid revision 1251038348 by Wbm1058 (talk) this redirect is from talk space to user space - therefore R to user is an appropriate categorization because user talkspace is NOT userspaceTag: Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
Hello there, ] to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to ]. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit ] or how to format them visit our ]. If you have any other questions about the project then check out ] or add a question to the ]. Cheers! --] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Rcat shell| |
|
Hi, and welcome from me too. You may want to check out some important things you need to consider when you make a ] - for example, an external link on it's own isn't a stub, because it says nothing at all about the topic itself. You may want to write a few sentences yourself on the subject with the link. Thanks ] 10:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{R to user}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
==Salsa== |
|
|
Hallo, auch aus Berlin, ? Ich habe gesehen, dass Du am Salsa-Artikel mitgeschrieben hast, da wollte ich mal fragen, ob Du Interesse an einem hast? Außerdem hast Du so viele Versionen Deiner Seite, bist Du an einem interessiert, insbesondere für Vokabeln? Wenn ja, lass es mich auf meiner Diskussionsseite wissen. ] 13:15, 24 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article Licensing == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Just wanted to let you know that I've downloaded the UN/LOCODE database and I will be processing the data and performing the actions you requested sometime soon. I'll let you know if I have any questions. ] – ] <sup>() (])</sup>] 04:04, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Shortcut|]}} |
|
|
{{Shortcut|]}} |
|
|
{{Shortcut|]}} |
|
|
{{Shortcut|]}} |
|
|
:I have a question about the shortcuts. The suggested shortcut seems a bit complicated. Would it be better to have something shorter? You know this stuff more than I do, so maybe using the full "UN/LOCODE" is ideal. What about having shortcuts that just totally dispense with the "UN/LOCODE:" portion totally. I wouldn't think the five character codes are used for much else. Should there also be an equivalent IATA shortcut? The bot can create any of those, so it is not much of an issue. I wonder if the shortcuts should be added to the articles themselves or if they should remain "unpublished" so to speak. Thanks in advance for your help. ] – ] <sup>() (])</sup>] 14:50, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::discussion moved: ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Geography== |
|
|
Three things: |
|
|
|
|
|
# Notice your interest in geocodes. One issue with these is that my gut feel (], mind you) is that although there may be a copyright on the actual publication (which means you cannot outright copy/paste their PDF) I would think the situation is different wrt. the facts, especially so if taken from alternative, public sources. For instance, the codes are used throughout Norwegian administration, and there is no question about limitations to their use. |
|
|
# For ], we have listed geocodes for all counties, municipalities and boroughs. Is there anything more we should do wrt geocodes? Should there be redirects from ISO codes to the various ] and ], for instance? Please answer on ]. |
|
|
# Something maybe related: If you are interested, I've started a ]. I believe it should be possible to have bidirectional links to various map resources &mdahs; I am currently working on automatically generating back-links to Misplaced Pages from ], it looks quite promising. -- ] 07:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussions about renaming of subnational entities moved to ] |
|
|
] 17:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
moved. |
|
|
|
|
|
== ISO 3166-2 == |
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote on ]:<blockquote style="font-style:italic;border:groove lilac 3px;"> Hi Phil, |
|
|
<br/> |
|
|
nice that you do some work there and add sorted by name and so on. Do you think having it bold is a good idea? I do not like it, in other places we do not have bold codes neither regards ;-) ] 18:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
Ideally the '''key''' column ought to be bold, since that is the column you search on. So actually in the tables "sorted by name", the '''name''' column ought to be bold. |
|
|
That, however, can be sorted out later, in true wiki fashion. |
|
|
For now just constructing the tables and shoving the articles into the new category is enough to be getting on with. |
|
|
(BTW I'm going to continue putting them into ]: I don't think we actually '''need''' to break that down further.) |
|
|
HTH HAND |
|
|
--] | ] 10:25, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Peruvian regions == |
|
|
moved to ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mongolian aymags == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:RM == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please add a talk page so that your request to move can be discussed: See ] for example of how to format you request. ] 10:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
From my Talk page ]: |
|
|
::''] I put move-notes in some pages, but no admin moves. How is it working, or should I wait longer? e.g. ] allready 12 days marked for move thx ] 23:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Did you post this requested move on the ] section of the page? See ] for example of how to format you request. You also need to format the designated talk page discussion see ] -- (If you wish to reply to this posting please do so on my talk page as I do not monitor other people's talk pages) ] 10:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think what you are suggesting (monitoring just by category) is done in ]. However it is only a month since arguments over moves were posted directly on to the WP:RM page, so it is a little soon to move to a category based system. Also there would have to be some way of keeping them by date inside the category in order to make it easy to administer. I do not know enough about templates to know if that is possible to automate. ] 15:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Japanese regions == |
|
|
|
|
|
No, I don't think they were ever administrative divisions. And what's really important is what they are ''now''. -- ] (]) 07:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Russian administrative divisions== |
|
|
You've got basic Russian subdivisions right, but I suggest you look at ] as well. It is incomplete and somewhat inaccurate, but it should give you an idea of the level of complexity of the project you are trying to pull. This is for Russia alone; I am sure there are other countries with just as great a variety of subdivision types as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
I thus very much doubt that this variety can be brought to one common "English usage" denominator (don't forget the historical subdivision types which may no longer exist, but can still conflict with other terms just as efficiently as anything else—e.g., see ] or ]). Trust me, your project is exactly what I had in mind (albeit only in regards to Russia) when I first joined Misplaced Pages. I am still interested in how you are going to move on, though; I just hope you are not going to give it up because people are unfriendly and because a lot of compromises will have to be made (and oh yes, they will). Good luck with your endeavor! If you have any Russia-related questions, feel free to drop me a note.—] 20:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I never said I am going to go along with your plan, but I am definitely not going to prevent you from doing it :) You have some very legitimate questions, many of which stopped me altogether. |
|
|
:Using "province" for "oblast" seems to be OK, and it is definitely acceptable when one is trying to explain what the heck an "oblast" is. The problem is, the actual English word "province" (and yes, I know it's not a native English word, of course) is translated into Russian as "провинция". Not only this word is heavily used to descibe subdivisions of certain other countries, it was also used as a name for subdivisions in Russia itself. Guberniyas were originally subdivided into "provinces"/"провинции". It is not really a problem when one talks of modern day administrative subdivisions, but in historical context it might be very confusing if you use the same word "province" to describe oblasts as well. For example, in 18th century the Goverorships General (guberniyas) were being transformed into vice-royalties ("наместничества"), and as a result, the original subdivision of guberniyas into provinces ("провинции") was replaced with their subdivision into oblasts ("области"). It's pretty easy to see that if you translate both "провинция" and "область" as "province", you have a pretty big problem on hand. |
|
|
:"Districts" are currently being used to describe both raions (районы) and autonomous districts (автономные округа) (as well as federal districts—федеральные округа). So far it has not been a problem, but I've been thinking of getting rid of "districts" altogether, which, of course, is the exact opposite of what your project is trying to accomplish. "Counties" sounds wrong when applied to Russia, for some reason. It's been long since Russia had any counts :) |
|
|
:"Territory" for "krai" seems to be the least controversial of all. Still, it may conflict with other countries subdivision types, which may be on a completely different level. "Region" sounds pretty generic and inaccurate; I would reserve it for historical regions (like Vyatka region). |
|
|
:Summarizing, these issues are exactly why the table I referred you to has so many columns. Each of them is good for certain occasions, but none of them is good to be used universally. I've been hoping to develop this table into an article someday, but I am quite hesitant to publish it yet as it is very incomplete (which may be hard to believe), and has a lot of inconsistencies. You are welcome to use it for general reference, of course, that's why it is there. Thanks for the compliment, by the way :) |
|
|
:Anyway, let me know what you think. I'd be happy to help where I can, it's just that I am overall sceptical that a universal solution can be developed.—] 22:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, I was kind of hesitant to see the contents of my table dumped into the article. The main reason is that they were unorganized and incomplete, and there were many organizational issues with them as well, which I hoped to (eventually) work out before presenting the article to the general public. After reviewing how the article looks now, I see that it turned out a bit better than I thought it would. Oh well, maybe there will be some fresh good ideas to finally organize all that stuff. |
|
|
::As for the oblasts, I'd recommend that you do not move them all at once. Once you have a more or less consistent system, move a couple of articles and see what the feedback is going to be. If you don't have the system worked out yet, don't move the article, or you'll spend the rest of your wikilife fighting people opposing your changes without being able to explain what kind of a final result you have in mind :)—] 21:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Oblasts -> Provinces == |
|
|
moved to ] |
|
|
|
|
|
I posted a pretty long comment on my ]. I am hesitant to cross-post it here due to its large size. Please, see it there if you are interested. Thanks!—] 16:00, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Capitalized subdivisions == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you insist capitalizing the Peruvian regions and now also the provinces names? Please understand that each country has its own way of calling things and you cannot go changing national costumes. Just because you think it looks more "standard" doesn't mean it is right! Please revert your changes.--] ] 03:07, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: Thanks for the reply. Well, this is what disambiguation and redirect pages are for. Redirects can be created so that people who enter the names incorrectly (for example "Camaná Province") will be transferred to the article whose name is correcty spelled (in this case, "Camaná province"). I think it's great that you want to make things more understandable and easier to use for people, but the information that is on wikipedia has to be accurate, and I know the whole capitalization issue might seem irrelevant, but it '''does''' matter if a P is lowercase or uppercase. --] ] 03:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Yes, well for this case that you mention, a disambig page is necessary because two places share the same name. But I am talking about the '''Peruvian''' provinces. In this case, the correct spelling is lowercase. So if you want all provinces of the world to be standardized with a uppercase P, you should make redirects from these pages to the correct, lowercase ones, at least in the case of Peru, because as I said earlier, the information given on wikipedia has to be accurate. I think that the word "River" was easier to standardize because it is way more widespread than "province", which can still be used according to local customs. --] ] 04:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Again, as I've said before, '''I am only referring to Peruvian provinces''' and their most accurate spelling. I do not know about and I am not in charge of other countries' provinces, at least for now. And I did not say the word wasn't widespread, I said it's less widespread than river. --] ] 05:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: So that you can see the differences between countries, a google search shows that in Ecuador () and Argentina (]) it is common practise to capitalize the word, while in Peru it is not . El Comercio, the most important newspaper of Lima -and indeed of Peru-, does not capitalize the word. (examples: and ). If the Spanish language capitalization is respected in the case of Argentina and Ecuador, why should it not be taken in consideration for Peru? --] ] 06:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I will not contradict you on this anymore, as hundreds of article names support your views, since not respecting national names is apparently considered correct on wikipedia. --] ] 06:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm not totally sure but I think that after looking at some Peruvian government pages, some of the province names are incorrect (accents are missing, wrong spelling, etc.), so there would be no use in wikifying these names. I will look for the correct ones and put them in the articles as soon as I have time, and then they can be wikified. --] ] 07:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ubeda == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please help me include ] on the first line of the article. ] 10:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Flag templates== |
|
|
You might be interested in ], a usefull standardization. -- user:Docu |
|
|
|
|
|
: I made more comments to ]. |
|
|
{{country|flag|United States of America}} |
|
|
{{country|flag|Earth}} |
|
|
(] 08:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Zürich to Zurich == |
|
|
|
|
|
] has been nominated on ] for a page move to ]. Being a contributor to the previous vote you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move in the new vote on ]. ] 09:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== sandboxes == |
|
|
|
|
|
* Halló Tobias! Please contentrate on own activities in the future. Beside moving "''sandbox''" contributions I was / I am still working on, I could see no improuvemnt except that cyrillic characters did disapear. ] | | ] 14:33, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== San Isidro == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a disctrict called San Isidro in Buenos Aires, Argentina, too. So the "improvement" you made may lead to confusion. Please fix this mess. Thank you. --] ] 01:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chilean region names == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Tobias. |
|
|
|
|
|
I fixed all double redirects for ] and wanted to nullify my efforts :-) so I went to ]. There I saw that you had posted a very similar remark to the one that I wanted to make. Plese go ] and then we can see what can be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regards from ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 21:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] does a sterling job on ], but in this case I have some sympathy for your position because two of you want to make the moves and everyone else seems to be disinterested. If your appeal to Violetriga does not get the response you want, I suggest that you follow the advice at the bottom of WP:RM page for images and categories and put your case on ] and ask another administrator to make the moves for you. ] 06:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==] and ]== |
|
|
Hi Tobias - thought you might like to know (if you're making any more articles on Chilean geograhy) that there is a separate {{tl|chile-geo-stub}} that you can use, rather than the generic {{tl|geo-stub}} template! Keep up the good work :)! ]|<sup>]</sup> ] 04:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:''I work on geo worldwide, what would be nice is support of two-letter country codes for geo stubs. some countries have really long names. just an idea ...'' |
|
|
Some of the longer ones do have abbreviations (SM-geo-stub for Serbia-Montenegro, for instance), but for the most part the full name is seen as the easiest thing to remember rather than looking at a coding sheet every time. You're right that having to type things like Afghanistan-geo-stub gets to be a chore after a while, though! If you're interested, there's a full list of them at ]. ]|<sup>]</sup> ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Regions of Chile == |
|
|
|
|
|
Having thought about it I reckon that the regions of Chile should really be moved – you want them there and there's been no opposition. If you could do it without admin assistance I'm sure you would and there wouldn't be any complaints, so there's no reason for me not to do it. I'll sort them out tomorrow for you. ] ] 23:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Croatian counties == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi. Please stop moving Croatian county pages to uppercased "County". Again. We've had this discussion once before and you've failed to provide any real reason why they should be moved. --] 22:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''you are ignorant and you are lying'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, excellent. Keep saying offensive nonsense like that and you'll make my life much easier, since you'll simply be banned. --] 22:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the majority of counties in the world are uppercase. But not the Croatian ones - this simply doesn't apply. The word county is not a direct, sanctioned translation of the word županija - it's just the closest available word. We could have used the word "province", or even "region", none of them are much worse than "county". When you uppercase "County", that makes it sound as if there actually is an entity called e.g. "Zagreb County". But there '''isn't'''. There's only "Zagrebačka županija". The rest is translation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I can't help but notice that it's your moves that have helped create this overwhelming majority of uppercased references on Misplaced Pages. We can't really effectively mine data and make a conclusion about how common an option really is, when you've already adjusted the playfield to fit your views. Granted, you could say the same of my creating those pages lowercased, but then, nobody except you ever complained about that being lowercase. --] 22:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That no one else reverted is true, but you have to account for the fact that there's 20 pages and over 20 redirects to update when one changes the whole set. It takes a fair bit of patience to get that done, so it's not surprising that people aren't anxious to go through another round of mass-change. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody needs to explicitly claim that "X County" is the official name, but this will still be understood as such implicitly. There's also the inherent meaning of the word used in translation that would cause people to ascribe certain properties to the ''županije'' that they may not necessarily have. BTW, if I recall correctly, the Germans had to invent the word ''Gespanschaft'' in order to translate župa/županija, they did not use their common words for territorial units, which is indicative of how such a thing has been handled in the past. --] |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, "prefecture" would be usable, too. This only contributes to my point that there is no point in picking a form other than the previous one and insisting on normalizing everything on that. Just leave it be, it's fine as it is. --] 16:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''the term should not be different from other entities.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Why not? Cf. my last few sentences in ]. --] 16:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
moved to ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Subdivisions of Russia== |
|
|
As I promised, I am going to keep providing you with information that is probably not going to make your work any easier. ] recently created two stubs on two Russian historical subdivisions: ]s and ]s, which I copyedited and added to a little. I would like to point you to the section of the ] article that deals with modern Russia. This is strictly an FYI, which, as I thought, would interest you. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I left my response at ] as you asked me to review it. Please keep me posted; I continue to be very interested in your project, even though I am still on the neutral side of things :). Best, —] 20:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Iudaea Province == |
|
|
|
|
|
My I ask you why you moved the page ] to ]? Furthermore, it would be nice if you explained this move in the talk page.--] 07:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Template:ISO == |
|
|
|
|
|
You expressed interest in an ISO flag template: ] (] 06:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ash Sharqiyah Province == |
|
|
|
|
|
] -> Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
|
|
|
It was a cut and past job using a sock pupet address. The page can not be moved by an ordinary user to that page name without an ] request because "Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia" has been edited more than once. |
|
|
|
|
|
If it happens again then just revert both edits like I have. ] 09:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mediator comments == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen the request for mediation, so I decided to drop by and look at things. It appears the subpage NoPuzzleStranger created has angered you, not only because of it's contents but also because it's located in the Misplaced Pages namespace. |
|
|
|
|
|
Still, calling him a liar, whether true or not is unproductive and causes ill blood between you two. Try to keep down the frustration you may be feeling and talk to him like you want to be spoken to. Tell him why you moved the pages you moved, and tell him which you didn't move. Continue talking to him on his talk page, it's the most productive thing to do. I've left NoPuzzleStranger a message too. - ]|] 14:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
Per your request—reviewed and commented. Also, translated ''vnutrigododskoy''. Thanks.—] 13:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''Vtutrigorodskoy'' literally means "inter-city", i.e., a district under the jurisdiction of the city. This is just Russian bureaucracy-speak. When it is translated as just "city district", no meaning is lost. Even in Russian, these districts are often referred to as just "gorodskiye rayony", that is, "city districts".—] 16:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== lots of edits, not an admin == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in ]? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Argentine Regional Board == |
|
|
|
|
|
You are wellcome to join the ] -] 09:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== AR-geo-stub == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to let you know that the correct link is <nowiki>{{Argentina-geo-stub}}</nowiki> -- ] | ] 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I went to do it for you but I notice you did it yourself first. -- ] | ] 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
There's already {{tl|Argentina-geo-stub}}. We deliberately don't use the two letter digraphs because they're little known by most people and can be very confusing. AR-geo-stub could just as easily be for Armenia, Arizona, or Aruba. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 01:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, it's known by Argentinians, but it isn't known by many people anywhere else. And editors are from throughout the world. AR is also known by all people in Arkansas to refer to their state, and since US states are being split up it is likely to cause considerable confusion. The only codes we use are ones used internationally by a large proportion of people and are unambiguous, such as US, UK, and NZ, all of which are known throughout the world, and all of which represent the initial letters of their respective countries. As for Aruba and its size, that's not really relevant. In any case, why would you want this when there's a well-used template already in existence, and it takes just as few key strokes to cut and paste it as AR? ]...<font color=green><small>''] 01:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Your point about BrColumbia is exactly what I'm referring to. It's known throughout the world as Br. Columbia, so the stub name was made that. It's known as BC in Canada, but we haven't used BC-geo-stub. Yes, ISO 3166-1 is something that can be done worldwide, but it is something that few editors would know off the top of their heads, whereas country names are much more obvious. And it still doesn't explain why you'd want AR or arg when there's a perfectly acceptable name already in use. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 02:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your concerns have been addressed. If you wish, Argentina could have a redirect at SouthAmericaA-geo-stub, since that would keep it in line with the others you mention. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 03:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Let's chat. == |
|
|
|
|
|
First, to respond to what you said on StarbucksFreak's talk page. You said: ''"After long debate StarbucksFreak said he would not contest uppercase. So this is not unilateral."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Really? Long debate? Sounds like he gave up to me: ''"I will not contradict you on this anymore, as hundreds of article names support your views, since not respecting national names is apparently considered correct on wikipedia."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Capitulation does not mean consensus. Or was there an exchange after this that I missed? |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is the English WP - but that doesn't mean the rules in English are different from the rules in the local country. Just because many countries use capitalized letters doesn't mean the Latin American ones do, and furthermore, just because MOST Latin American do, doesn't mean they ALL do. Why must ALL be upper/lowercased, regardless of local standards? Why do you insist on a standard that does not exist? --] 21:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:After going back and reading it does seem like there was some more discussion after this; however, it was Tuomas's statement about giving up because "not respecting national names is apparently considered correct". That made me sad and I wanted him to know that was wrong. It was this statement, and the arguments I've seen from others, that had me looking closer at your work. I should probably quiet down and take a wider look at this, but please, please, stop speaking in terms of global (or even regional) standards. Every country is different - even countries next to each other in Latin America. --] 21:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks for your response. It was just seeing people get frustrated and give up that got to me. OK, let's start over here. I agree that standards are useful, but let's go the opposite direction - Instead of having a few standards and use those on countries, use the local custom and, if close enough, switch those to one of the few standards. However, above all else, local custom must be respected, even more than any particular English preference. This means that some exceptions will have to be allowed to the rule. Is ther anything wrong with this proposal? It was also seeing you change a lot of articles to places that had no business being changed (Like my earlier example of you moving the article to "Sao Paolo State", which could (I'm not too versed on Brazil, however) be equivalent to moving the article on Texas to "Texas State" - hopefully you can see the problem with that.) I'm not saying rename articles to "Provincia de Whatever" or "Whatever districto", but I am saying, unless "province" or "district" is typically part of the short form of the name (And I think short form is what matters here), then it should not be included in upper case. County Fermanagh is part of the short form; State of New York is not. Unfortunately, neither of us can be too familiar with the short forms of ALL subdivisions, which is why we need to ask the local populations, as represented on Misplaced Pages, if at all possible. When in doubt, hm... then I suppose we pick the standard that seems to work best, and hope someone who knows better comes along. --] 22:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::And I just wanted to apologize again if I came on a bit strong - and I did. --] 22:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::In re Grutness's talk page - there's a place for being bold, and there's a place for having respect for those who came before you. You're being hilariously literal on that "stupid" bit - the only reason you called the poll stupid was because it disagreed with your decree. Or do you have a better reason? Listen, I know you're making a lot of good edits, but you're also making a lot of established editors mad with your changes and the flippant style in which you respond - "Well you don't like that, I don't care" is the impression I get from you. Please demonstrate that I'm wrong, I beg you. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::However, this will be the last communication I make on these grounds. I hope the next time we chat, it will be in a better cirumstances, I honestly do. I like your focus, I just think you're going about it the wrong way. --] 14:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
] (you mentioned on ) could be sockpuppet of former Wikipedian(s) forbidden to edit . If you have more problems with him RfAr may be the best solution. ] 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== UTC articles == |
|
|
|
|
|
moved to ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== South American geo-stubs == |
|
|
|
|
|
I repeat: ''So - to cut a long story short: Ecuador and Colombia - very probably soon; Venezuela - maybe''. What part of that did you not understand? Why have you gone ahead and created these without going through the proper procedure? This is tantamount to vandalism. DO NOT continue with this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, forget it. I quit. It's just too much hassle. I have wasted too much time and energy in making 38,000 edits on wikipedia over the last year, most of them sorting out the complete mess that was the stub system into something approaching a rational set up. If you want to go ahead and make meaningless categories with only a handful of stubs then who am I to complain. Keep going, and I hope you enjoy the shambles that will be the result of it. Consider me an ex-Wikipedian. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 23:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
relax: e.g. ] reached very easily 78 articles this is more than your 60-limit. Why be so bureaucratic with "go through process". ] ] 23:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Going through process avoids problems later. Just yesterday someone created ], when we already have ], i.e., an almost identical category. If they'd followed the process, they'd have found this out and the stub sorters wouldn't have to re categorise everything and delete a category. ''That's '' the sort of reason why there is a set process. ''Make easy rules and people will follow them. '' you also wrote. There '''are''' easy rules. And they're all explained at ] - the first place anyone should look when dealing with stub articles. Has Paraguay reached 78? I don't think so. What about Uruguay? ]...<font color=green><small>''] 23:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*With all due respect, you may be adding to the problem with your latest edits. It isn't enough to say "so-and-so is a city in the state of such-and-such in Venezuela." You may be leaving a bit of a mess for others to clean up since these substubs don't really offer information beyond what someone might already know if they were interested in researching these subjects. ''Please'' take some time to add more information to these and ''please'' don't expect other users to expand these. Feel free to leave word on my talk page...and strongly consider extending an olive branch to Grutness. He is truly one of this site's best editors and it would be a shame to lose him. Thanks. - ] 05:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. I'm pleased to see you're trying to settle the matter. Regarding the stubs, I've made some of them into redirects to the main articles at ] and ]. Your original contributions are still in the edit history, so you can go and expand them at your leisure. Thanks again for your help. - ] 06:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==WP:RM== |
|
|
|
|
|
Please read the guidelines on ] ] to complete your request for ] Also as it is a River-project in line with ] please enter the move under ] |
|
|
-- ] 18:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== What edits? == |
|
|
Regarding your unsigned mesage on my page, I am unaware of having deleted any edits of your's anywhere. If I have, I appolagise, it has been an unintentional mistake please re-insert them where ever they are.] | ] 21:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am not on the edit history of the link you have left on my page. do you mean this one . I don't understand which edits of your's have disapeared, I only posted on the bottom of the, page, anyway as I said if I did delete by mistake I appolagise. Glad it is sunny in Prussia, here in London it rains. ] | ] 22:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Double redirects== |
|
|
I beg your pardon. Don't do what? ] 21:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
Well I obviously didn't do them intentionally. They are sorted now. What did you mean by braeking wikipedia. Neither braking nor breaking make any sense, ] 21:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I understand you perfectly now. I haven't seen any, and as I know you haven't corrected any perhaps you would be kind enough to point where they are. Why did you move Cortes department back to Department. It's not called that here, and we should do our best to use common names, ] 21:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There are no double redirects, only single ones. So the wikipedia flow has not been broken. This ] is a double redirect and I haven't found any in the departments of Honduras, ] 22:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: there are, as explained in Depts of Honduras talk page . |
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't understand your explanation. The only double redirect was at Yoro, which had been redirected to the department and then erroneously put as a city on the Department of Honduras page. Someone else's mistake, but the city now has it's own article, as it would have had weeks ago but for this mistake, ] 22:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Your breaking of wikipedia== |
|
|
Please desist your attacks against me in edit summaries and elsewhere. I was warned. Your behaviour is very uncollaborative and assum,es bad faith to the point of looking for a fight. Why? You should have fixed the link you knew was broken instead of hassling me with deliberately mystifying but demanding statements. As you knew about the double redirect and did not fix it you, to quote yourself, broke wikipedia (which actually doesn't maker sense in English, but I'll leave you to ponder on that one yourself, ] 02:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have NO problems with mistakes. Sorting it out would not have helped prevent errors in future. Why do you not check for dbl redirects? If you move it says ''check'' and leads you to ] with still two double redirects. Call them 2nd level redirects if you like. please try to fix them - just to show me you understood what I mean. regards |
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking = breaking the functionality. ] ] 02:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|