User talk:Domino theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Domino theory, 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:

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!  Karmafist 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! - Domino theory 22:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] LOC Country Studies

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies! Thanks for joining. I started the project because I think the Country Studies have a great deal of potential to improve Wikipedia's coverage of various topics if they're used systematically. If you have any questions, suggestions, or ideas please let me know. Thanks again for joining.--Bkwillwm 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Country Studies is indeed a great resource and it should be used. I did some work on templates and categorization, but I think more could be done. I've seen some more advanced templates and it seems like it would be possible to implement additional features, like built in external references and dates when the source was consulted, but i'm not really sure how to do that yet. I'm still fairly new here. -- Domino theory 10:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divided regions

Hello Domino! Great initiative of yours to create the divided regions category. I have taken the liberty of altering the wording in its description slightly, e.g. by removing all the types of subnational entities mentioned. I hope this is allright by you? Also, I think that the category might need mention of transborder Euroregions/InterReg's, such as the Northern Dimension. What do you think? //Big Adamsky 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw the rephrasing and it's great. I considered a few different options before starting out, but the initial idea I had was that the category would consist of current administrative entities only, and of course Limburg in Belgium and the Netherlands was a perfect example of this. Pretty soon I realised that this would be more complicated than I had envisioned, because my original idea also depended on that the articles relating to a one particular region used more or less the same naming convention (ie the same language). This broke down already at Silesia where the different entities have articles with English, Polish, German and I believe also Czech names respectively. This means that a number of articles has been left out, simply because they won't fit the mold. This is sad but adding them would make it difficult to spot their unique names that serves to connect them to each other.
To solve some of these problems I also allowed historical entities to be added alongside of contemporary, even though this obviously makes the comparison less transparent. In the case of the island of Saint Martin, only one article seems to exist and that opened the door for a number of historical regions which may not even have current names that connect them. I think the concept is quite interesting and I'm somewhat surprised that it hasn't already been done, but at the same time I'm not entirely pleased with the outcome. Maybe the articles and their naming needs to be changed, but I'm a little hesitant to do that on the grounds of just this category. Maybe the category itself should be broken up into smaller pieces, or maybe a combination of both. Additional or expanded categories could also satisfy other aspects of regions that are presently divided, but not subject for inclusion here. -- Domino theory 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea for a category. I posted a comment on Category talk:Divided_regions which may (or may not) spark some good conversation.

Anyway, another question here ... I got to the category from the United States Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands pages. I don't think they belong in this category for a variety of reasons (which I'll elaborate only if you're interested), but I'd like to know why you think they do. --Gruepig 08:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted a comment at Category talk:Divided_regions, and I think points 9 or 10 comes close to your question here. It is rather the issue of principles than whether a single entity should be included or not that is interesting, but examples are fun too. Feel free to elaborate. -- Domino theory 19:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Templar

Hiya, please be aware that there have been some elaborate consensus-building discussions about how to direct or redirect the term "Knights Templar". You are welcome to participate in the discussions (see Talk:Knights Templar (military order)), but please do not move pages around unless you are sure that there is consensus. Thanks. --Elonka 19:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Without being aware of any discussion I found the structure with a disambiguation page at "Templar (disambiguation)" and one page of ambigous indeterminate value, if any, at "Knights Templar" mildly confusing. From what I've seen of Wikipedia so far this is not as uncommon as it should be. My two cents would be that the "Knights Templar (military order)" belongs at "Knights Templar" similar to the "Knights Hospitaller", and if needed a disambiguation page can be kept. -- Domino theory 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:United fronts

Hello, your Category:United fronts is highly inaccurate. Most of the groups you list are not united fronts, but rather popular fronts. A united front is a very precise Marxist tactic, while the popular front is much more fluid. --metzerly 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, I can see that you made some of the necessary changes, but defunct categories should be listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion not be redirected. Will you take care of it? -- Domino theory 09:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. I wasn't sure how to delete a category. --metzerly 23:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saluzzo

Hi! I noticed that you deleted the category "Former states of Europe" from Saluzzo article. I switched it back, and I explain why: as not separate entry exist at present for Marquisate of Saluzzo, I consider the category referring to the History section. Let me know your opinion. Ciao!!! Attilios

Hello! I think the information as such is valuable and should be retained, however my opinion is that the category "Former states of Europe" is not the right forum since it tends to confuse the delimitation between a current municipal entity and a historical status of the territory as a sovereign state.It is not in itself sufficient that the former polity is mentioned in the text if the article as such refers to a different entity. However since there are several Italian historical polities, which are currently only represented by articles for cities or current subnational entities an intermediate sollution could be to create a category like "Historical city-states in Italy" or similar, which could then be listed as a subcategory to "Former states of Europe". -- Domino theory 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Governorate

Hi there! I noticed your interest in Russian Governorates articles. Would you be willing to take over this project? If you speak Russian, I can send you all the materials I have. Thanks and keep up the good work!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the offer, but I do not speak Russian. However, I would still consider working on these articles from time to time, and there still seems to be room for improvements on the existing material. Its good to know that I can put the question to you if I have some considerations, and please give me your input when ever you feel its appropriate. -- Domino theory 11:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, will do. Thanks for your interest in this topic!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catalonia

I've been surprised for your edition renaming this article, created in 2002. In your user page, you describes yourself as a recent editor. I assume that this is the reason for making such a change without a previous discussion. Your opinions are welcome in the discussion pages, and in [[1]]. Best regards from Barcelona, --Joan sense nick 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the edit history of the article you will discover that the article was moved by User:Djln on April 5. What I did was to create a redirect to restore the functionality, which was disrupted by Djln's effort to turn "Catalonia" into a disambiguation page. I presume an experienced editor would have discovered this. Best regards -- Domino theory 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to you if you felt my words inappropriated: as you can see, my english is not very good. It was not my intention to villainize anybody!. I have not seen (it wasn't that easy) the full edit history of the article. I appreciate your effort in solve this little muddle. --Joan sense nick 22:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nor and Sud Peruvian Republics

I would rather you reversed the articles to their original format for several reasons: a) the use of Sud or Nor instead of the most common North or South is in line with their "real" or "official" names, in fact in the official document of creation of these republics they were not named North Peru (Peru del Norte) o South Peru (Peru del Sur) but Nor-Peruvian (Norperuana, an adjective in itself) and Sud-Peruvian (Sudperuana, also an adjective). As you will notice, the adjectives used in the original names are just ONE word, implying thus the adjectivization of the word. That is what I have been trying to preserve. b) Also it is proper to differentiate the name of the country from the name of the geographical area they occuppy. North Peru is definitely a geographical area and still exists as such (i.e. Trujillo is in North Peru.) Nor-Peru on the other handd is more of a "name" for the Republic. Some of the other changes are minor, but also in the case of the names used you eliminated the minor variations used only in a few documents, that would be useful to keep if only as a reference. Mel Romero 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you simply because the names should either be in original form or in English. Do you have any sources supporting that for the names that you have proviced? Cheers! -- Domino theory 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former country subdivisions

Category:Former country subdivisions and Category:Subdivisions of historic countries - great that you did the sorting of the subcats and the pages. You are my WP-Hero of the day. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :), but as always the workload is staggering in organizing the categories... --Domino theory 09:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Economic history of the Holy See

Thanks for being bold and moving this category. I didn't know that there was a Category:Economic history by country category when I created it. I'm also glad that you didn't move it to "Economic history of the Vatican," because although the Vatican is the name of the country, the scope of this category is meant to be inclusive of the entire history of the papacy, rather than just the (relatively recent) period in which it has been recognized as a country. Cheers, savidan(talk) (e@) 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "Economic history of the Holy See" strikes a pretty good balance in that "economic" is a slightly wider term than "financial", and that it makes it possible to categorize it with other "countries". I agree, it wouldn't have made much sense to separate the Vatican City from the Papacy, I felt it was better to let the Holy See encompass all these aspects. Cheers -- Domino theory 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former countries

Hi. I see you've removed "Category:former countries" from articles like Republic of Texas with the comment "Clean-up categories". As the category seems relevent, your reasons for doing this seem unclear and the explanation inadiquate. If you plan to put those articles into a different category or subcategory instead, it might be better to add the new category at the same time as removing the old one. If you think the category is inappropriate for the article it is on, please give an explanation. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 18:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that you meant to move it to "Former countries in North America". Am I correct? I have changed the category on that one thusly. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I already did that in June [2], and in fact it is still in there. The clean-up was about removing the superfluous [[Category:Former countries]] and I'm sorry if it was not clear enough... Maybe it's best to remove the duplicate "Former countries in North America" that you added. Cheers, -- Domino theory 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Infobox Former Country additions...

...and for the Yemen (disambiguation) page. The arrows and flags for prior and successor states on the template are geil. —  AjaxSmack  03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The new features are quite neat, and it works amazingly well! However some features to be implemented, like automatic file name resoultion and verification for plausible images, had to be exluded or limited since it didn't work properly with the current version of MediaWiki. I must have sifted through the dozen or so articles relating to Yemen as historical political entities, when I realized that some kind of structured view was needed. Cheers. -- Domino theory 08:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Independent State of Croatia and State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

I've done some reverts, please don't be mad :-) empire = Germany is not quite correct as half of NDH was Italy's sphere of influence. Therefore I removed it. I reckon that Invasion of Yugoslavia is much more informative than just "Invasion". And, yes, common name... now, Independent State of Croatia was rarely called Croatia. Local common name was NDH, which is abbreviation for local name of the state, but just Croatia was never used... --Dijxtra 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh. And, I did some reverts on State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Most of it was historical accuracy. For instance, kingdom was named Kingdom of Yugoslavia only after 11 years. Then, the State didn't have president or Vice presidents, it didn't manage to form those posts before it entered the Kingdom. So it is far more accurate to put President of National Council... --Dijxtra 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the variables in the infobox are there for functional purposes, not informational. Consider the presentation of the content in the infobox as it is displayed, not the names of the variables as such.
My edits are directed to resolve existing problems related to not applying the template properly. I was not hoping to immediately have the same problems ambitiously recreated. Thanks to your effort the articles has been returned to a state where they can't be categorized or sorted properly. Please take a while to study the Template talk:Infobox Former Country#Usage. Do you want to restore the clean-ups yourself, or will you allow me? -- Domino theory 22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I find your lack of good faith disturbing. I approached you in a more than civil manner and apologised in advance for any trouble and/or irritation this reverts of mine might create for you. I will now try to find a more civil editor to talk to so he can explain to me your problems with my edits, but will in the mean time also revert those of your changes which I find wrong. If you wish to contact me about those, make sure you explain to me why precisely does each and every variable you revert back has to have the value you set, and make sure you do that in a civil manner and in a good faith. Thank you very much for your cooperation. --Dijxtra 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm really sorry if you feel that I came off as uncivil to you, but I'm willing to go through this again and try to explain why there is a problem. Speaking of good faith, it is perhaps something that could be extended rather than unilaterally expected.
I think you may also be put off by believing that this is a form of argument, but maybe I have to spell it out that I'm not trying to argue with you. I am purposely not opposing the information that you are trying to add. What I am trying to say is that the way that you have entered information does not work. I will try to summize this in a few of simple points. Please ask any if there is something you would like to have explained further.
  • Changing the "common_name" variable for "Independent State of Croatia" from "Croatia" to "Independent State of Croatia" means that the article will no longer be sorted among countries starting with the letter "C" like "Canada", but rather under the letter "I" like "Indonesia". The variable name "common_name" is not refering to what may or may not have once been seen as the "common name" of the state, but is a control variable for the template to work properly.
Well, Independent State of Croatia goes under the letter "I" like "Indonesia" just like United States of America goes under "U" and not under "A".
  • The "government_type" variable is designed to classify the state entity according to how it was governed and put it in the appropriate category. This done for a number of recognized government types like "Monarchy" or "Constitutional monarchy", but if one were to put something else like within brackets or more than one classification this functionality does not work and the article is not put in any category, which also makes it harder for a reader to find.
So it be. Because, puting Kingodm of Yugoslavia under Constitutional Monarchy is not correct because it was pure dictatorship from 1929 to 1931. Better to have it in no category rather to have it in just one category. If you do not agree with me, feel free to raise the issue on the article talk page.
  • Smiliarly variables like "status", "era" and others also help to classify the article and put it into categories, which makes the article easier for readers to find.
So, why is "End of World War I" wrong for an era? As for status, I didn't touch status of the countries in my last series of reverts.
When entering or changing the values of the variables in the infobox, it is not enough to consider merely what information is entered, but also that functionality is preserved.
I consulted available documentation for the template every time when I did the change in it and except for largest_city (which I returned to the template by error) I always obeyed the available documentation.
The reason why we are having this discussion highlights the fact that there should be a better guide on how to use the template, and an introductory guide like that is in the works. However the template is not fully developed and does not make use of all variables just yet, nor is it ready for full deployment. Since this is the case the instances where the template has been implemented needs to brought up to standards in order to gather experiences and to complete that work. This does not discount for the fact that who ever decides to implement the template also needs to spend at least some thought on finding out how the template actually works, and be willing to accept that there is such a thing as functionality. -- Domino theory 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So, the thing is that not all features and requirements of the template are documented. Well, why don't you say so? I know that it is easier to just revert my changes instead of telling me what I did wrong, but if there is no documentation and the template doesn't say it is an experimental one, then who should I know how to use it? Do you see a "do not use this template, it is still in development" notice on the template? Do you see a notice "documentation about this template is full of holes, prepare for reverts if you use it"? I don't. And, in cases like that you are supposed to approach the editor who used the template and explain to him what went wrong, not just tell him that he is recreating problems. The problems which I recreate because you didn't write proper documentation are not my error, but yours. Acting accordingly would be a nice gesture.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not spitting on your work. I'm just saying that you need a bit of a shift in your approach to people who didn't participate in development of this template. I don't know how to use it. I don't have a documentation to learn how to use it. I don't see a notice saying I shouldn't give it a shot and use the template. Just being polite and pointing out what I did wrong, point by point, would be really nice. Because, you have to do that sooner or later to make a decent documentation. --Dijxtra 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What you are telling me is that you have in fact studied the documentation available from the template page, but still revert and repeatedly revert edits to illustrate a point? The other option would be that despite the fact that there are documentation available on how categories are generated by the template you have simply not bothered to study it. Complaining about documentation, but still not bothering to read it... These are not examples of bringing a productive attitude to Wikipedia. -- Domino theory 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I see that both of us have come forward pretty much at once. Most of what i've said on my talk page is also said here. Yes, the main problem is that the template is still in development and there is still not enough documentation. Most new developments come from our attempts to implement the infobox everwhere and confronting new problems, and, like just about any form of programming, the documentation always lags behind the code. We really want to see this template in use and we're very happy to see other people help us in doing this. Actually, it's in situations like this where someone has the guts to speak out and demand to know what the problem is where we figure out just what documentation is necessary. For that, we must thank you. - 52 Pickup 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, I think this does illustrate the need of having a better guide for editors who wish to use tools that is being produced within the project. The infobox template is probably the prime example of this at the moment. I know that you have mentioned something about creating a quick guide, and I'm of course interested in helping to make this happen. Pointing fingers is not a solution for anything, what matters is what and how we can improve.
I also think we received some good suggestions, like how to inform editors who are using the template or come into contact with the project for the first time. One problem is that editors might not take the trouble of reading guides or adhering to guidelines, others might not even know basic navigation techniques or be able to find necessary information. To alleviate this we could create some form of information package that includes posting a boiler plate information text to their talk pages when they come in contact and start using project tools.
We should consider developing a form of style guide. While some variables require discipline to retain functionality there are also several flexible free text variables, and cramming too much information or too long wikilinks into these is not a very good idea either. -- Domino theory 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The guide is not complete, but I guess now that it is probably better to put the incomplete part up rather than have nothing at all until it is completely written. I've just put up a completed section of the guide here. I have also put a warning on the template page. - 52 Pickup 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a good start, I will take a closer look at it. In the mean time I have set up a suggestion box to handle the process of adding new conditions and categories. The proposals that you added on talk page, and the links pointing there has been moved to the new suggestion box. -- Domino theory 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ping!

 

[edit] CS

Hi, I notice you've just undertaken an extensive split of the Czechoslovakia article, but I seem to have missed the relevant discussion, could you kindly direct me to the link to the discussion for this split? Cheers! +Hexagon1 (t) 08:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hexagon1, thank you for your message. I have, as I believe that you have noticed, restructured the content that was previously located at "Czechoslovakia". I boldly did this because I felt that it was necessary to split the article into separate parts. By this split two important objectives are achieved, creating a better structure to describe the different political entities of Czechoslovakia, and making better over all use of the content at this Wikipedia relating to Czechoslovakia.
The basis for the content that was included on the Czechoslovakia page and on all its relevant sub pages comes from the Library of Congress Country Study on Czechoslovakia. (The bulk of the text was transferred, in itself a commendable effort, in the beginning of January 2004, but as it would seem it has not been supplied with any kinds of references to its source, either in 2004 or since, and it is questionable whether the basic conditions for even using this material has been fulfilled.)
The country study itself published in 1987 was not only contemporaneous with the communist regime in Czechoslovakia, but also occupied itself with studying the conditions of the country at that time. Disseminating the differences in the material and determining what part of the study it originates from carries the traits of being either simple or obvious. Using a plethora of different sections from the mainstay of the study mixed with selected parts from the study's history section did not produce a cohesive image on what Czechoslovakia represented as a country from 1918 to 1992. The country study refer to Czechoslovakia under communist rule, and the articles produced from that text should originate from and refer to Czechoslovakia when it was a socialist country. Now such an article exists.
I believe however that the article name "Czechoslovakia" deserves a better fate than merely serving as a redirect. I also think that there is a value to describe Czechoslovakia as a country for the period from 1918 to 1992, but that also has to take into account that the unions of the Czech and Slovak nations existed in the shape of several different polities and different conditions during its duration. I think one source of inspiration could be how the case of Yugoslavia has handled. In that event one might also question the value of having a historical account for Czechoslovakia and another separate account for the History of Czechoslovakia? Cheers, -- Domino theory 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't have acted unilaterally on this, but since you did, that means a lot of work for us all regarding this. I suggest a disambiguation page or a redirect to History of Czechoslovakia for the Czechoslovakia page. That series also needs to be updated to go along with the de-merger, as the First Republic of Czechoslovakia and Republic of Czechoslovakia are essentially the same things, but the first article forms part of the History series whereas the second is a country-page. PS: All the images that you have derived from Image:LocationCzechoslovakia.png need to be licensed as public domain, as that is the licence the original blank world maps were licensed, and our modifications are not sufficient to claim copyright. PS2: In fact all maps derived from those original blank maps need to be licensed as such. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have undone Domino theory's move/split of Czechoslovakia, as any move that major should be done after a discussion on the article's talk page leads to a consensus that it is the correct course of action. Frankly, I find the idea of having a disambiguation page under a country's most recognized name to be improper and out of line with Wikipedia conventions; there should be a master article under Czechoslovakia, perhaps with breakout articles as needed from the history section. DT, your intentions may have been good, but in the future, please use talk pages before doing anything so drastic. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/m/User_talk%7EDomino_theory_8a8c.html"